;^^^-^ 


\Xi^ 


i^ivisioa.2)S  IZ35 
Section    •  iJ     /   / 


PRIMEVAL     REVELATION 


The  ''Davies  LecUire'\for  1896 


PRIMEVAL     REVELATION 


STUDIES   IN   GENESIS   I.— VIII. 


J.    CYNDDYLAN    JONES,    D.D. 


NEW   YORK 

AMERICAN    TRACT    SOCIETY 

lo,    EAST   23RD   STREET 

1897 


EXTRACT    FROM    THE    TRUST    DEED 
OF    THE    "DAVIES    LECTURE" 

Thomas  Da  vies,  of  Bootle,  near  Liverpool,  being  deeply 
interested  in  the  success  attd  prosperity  of  the  religious  de- 
nomination knoivn  as 

The  Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodists, 

and  being  actuated  by  a  desire  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of 
his  late  father, 

David  Davies, 

who  was  for  many  years  a  faithful  and  consistent  member 
of  the  said  denomination,  lately  resolved  to  found  and  endow 
a  Lectureship  to  be  called 

The  Davies  Lecture, 

in  connection  with  the  said  denomination  ;  and  for  that  pur- 
pose, in  June,  \Z^Ty,  paid  to  Trustees,  appoifitedby  the  Getieral 
Assembly,  the  sum  of  ;^2,ooo,  to  produce  annually  the  sum 

of£so- 

The  Lecturer  shall  be  a  fully  ordained  Minister  of  the 
Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodists. 

The  subject  of  the  Lecture  shall  be  Religion. 

The  Lecturer  shall  be  allowed  co?isiderable  latitude  in  the 
treat^nent  of  the  subject. 

While  special  attention  should  be  given  to  the  Christian 
Religion,  it  is  not  intended  to  exclude  the  subject  of  other 
religions. 


vi  THE   "DAVIES   LECTURE" 

Such  topics  as  the  following  may  be  taken  up  by  successive 
Lecturers  : 

The  Definition  of  Religion. 

The  Origin^  Growth^  a?id  Development,  together  with  the 
Universality  of  Religioji. 

The  Philosophy  of  Religion. 

The  Science  of  Comparative  Religion. 

The  Jewish  Religion  in  its  various  Stages. 

The  Christian  Religion  in  its  Developjnents  and  Corrup- 
tions, in  its  Doctrines  and  Practices. 

The  Relation  of  Science  to  Religion. 

The  Relation  of  Morality  to  Religion. 

All  topics  fairly  co7inected  with  Religion  in  any  of  its 
aspects,  ivhether  Theological,  Philosophical,  or  Historicil. 

The  Lectures  shall  be  delivered  in  each  year  during  the 
sittings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Welsh  Calvinistic 
Methodists,  at  one  of  their  Chapels  in  the  place  or  town 
ivhere  such  sittings  shall  be  held,  and  on  some  evening  before 
the  day  devoted  by  the  said  assembly  to  preachiftg ;  and  the 
Moderator  of  the  Assembly ^  or  in  his  absence  the  Actifig 
Moderator,  shall  preside  at  the  meeting  at  which  the  Lecture 
shall  be  delivered. 

Each  Lecturer  must,  within  twelve  calendar  months  after 
delivering  his  Lecture,  publish  it  at  his  own  expetise  in  crown 
Svo,  the  Lecture  to  take  not  less  tha?i  150  pages ;  and  to  be 
preceded  by  extracts  from  this  Deed,  explaining  the  foundation 
and  purpose  of  the  Lecture. 


PREFACE 

T  N  thinking  of  a  suitable  subject  for  the  Davies 
-^  Lecture  for  1896,  my  mind  gravitated  to 
"  Mosaic  Theology "  as  being  both  timely  and 
fruitful.  Materials  accumulated  beyond  my  expecta- 
tion, till  at  last  I  found  myself  under  the  necessity 
of  dividing  the  work  into  three  parts — Primeval 
Revelation,  Patriarchal  Revelation,  and  the  Sinaitic 
Revelation.  The  first  only  is  presented  in  this 
volume,  and  is  complete  in  itself. 

Many  efforts  have  recently  been  made  to  reduce 
the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  into  myths,  and  to 
reconstruct  human  history  on  the  supposition  that 
man  began  his  career  as  a  savage.  In  this  volume 
the  attempt  is  made  to  interpret  these  chapters  on 
the  traditional  hypothesis  that  the  Bible  account  is 
historically  trustworthy,  and  that  therefore  mankind 
began  their  course,  not  in  a  state  of  barbarism,  but 
in  a  stage  of  civilisation,  under  the  spiritual  guidance 
of  the  Creator. 

Under  the  stress  of  the  evolution  theory,  theo- 
logians of  repute  are    endeavouring   to   get,   not   as 


Vlll  PREFACE 

much,  but  as  little,  meaning  as  they  possibly  can 
out  of  the  early  narratives  of  the  Bible.  Marvellous 
is  the  ingenuity  which  is  shown  in  proving  what  the 
early  saints  did  not  know  and  did  not  believe.  But 
I  still  think  we  ought  to  read  the  Old  Testament 
under  the  reflected  light  of  the  New,  and  to  extract 
from  it,  not  as  little,  but  as  much  truth  as  we  honestly 
can.  Has  the  principle  of  Old  Testament  inter- 
pretation, as  illustrated  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  Galatians,  and  especially  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  been  invalidated  ?  Development 
implies  a  beginning  as  well  as  an  end,  germs  as 
well  as  fruits.     Are  seeds  less  real  than  roses? 

The  literature  of  this  subject  is  immense,  and  I 
claim  acquaintance  with  but  a  small  fraction  of  it. 
Since  this  book  went  to  the  press,  I  have  read 
Professor  Ryle  on  the  Early  Nai-ratives  of  Genesis ; 
and,  whilst  regretting  it  had  not  come  under  my 
notice  before  to  enable  me  to  give  more  point  to 
certain  strictures,  it  has  only  confirmed  me  in  the 
belief  that  the  mythical  theory  of  the  beginning  of 
Genesis  presents  us  with  a  very  lame  and  inadequate 
introduction  to  the  volume  of  Divine  Revelation, 
claiming  our  loyalty  and  faith.  I  have  also  just 
read  a  lecture  {Church  Times,  February  19,  1897) 
recently  delivered  by  Canon  Gore,  in  which  he 
attempts  the  reconciliation  of  the  evolutionary  origin 
of  man  with  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Fall.     The 


PREFACE  IX 

impression  left  on  my  mind  is  that  he  either  dilutes 
the  evolutionary  theory  of  the  origin  or  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man,  or  rather  that  he  dilutes 
both.  Either  Moses  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
St.  Paul  in  the  New  employed  language  unjusti- 
fiably strong,  or  Canon  Gore  uses  language  ex- 
cessively weak. 

Indeed,  one  begins  to  wonder  what  is  it  Christianity 
requires  us  to  believe.  According  to  a  certain  class 
of  influential  theological  writers,  it  does  not  require 
us  to  believe  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis ; 
it  does  not  require  us  to  believe  in  Hebrew  history 
as  presented  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  it  does  not  require 
us  to  believe  in  the  infallibility  even  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Is  it  a  healthy  tendency  of  the  modern 
theological  mind  to  be  thus  continually  endeavour- 
ing to  reduce  the  Christian  faith  to  a  minimum,  to 
be  always  asking,  not  how  much,  but  how  little,  we 
may  believe? 

J.  Cynddylan  Jones. 

Whitchurch,  near  Cardiff. 
February  24,    1 897. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

THE    PENTATEUCH    AND    CRITICISM      ....  I 


CHAPTER   1 
THE    CREATOR    AND    THE    CREATION    .  .  .  -47 

CHAPTER   II 
CREATION    AND    GEOLOGY  .  .  .  .  -6/ 


CHAPTER   III 

CREATION    AND    ASTRONOMY       .  .  .  .  .       9O 

xi 


Xll  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   IV 

PAGE 

CREATION    AND    EVOLUTION         .....     IO9 


CHAPTER   V 
THE    CREATION    OF    MAN  .  .  .  .  .  -133 

CHAPTER  VI 

MAN    IN    EDEN  .  .  .  .  .  -159 

CHAPTER  VII 
UNITY   AND    ANTIQUITY    OF    MAN  .  .  .  .    1 80 

CHAPTER   VIII 

man's    INNOCENCE    AND    PROBATION    ....    205 

CHAPTER   IX 
THE    TEMPTATION    AND    FALL 226 

CHAPTER   X 
THE   CONSEQUENCES   OF    THE    FALL     .  .  .  .    251 


CONTENTS 


xill 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE    PROTEVANGEL  !     DAWN    OF    HOPE 


PAGE 


CHAPTER  XII 


CAIN    AND    ABEL  '.     EVIL    AND    GOOD  . 


301 


CHAPTER  XIII 

ANTEDILUVIANS  I    DEVELOPMENT    OF    EVIL 


•    327 


CHAPTER   XIV 

THE    DELUGE  :    APPARENT    TRIUMPH    OF    EVIL 


•    352 


INTRODUCTION 


INTRODUCTION 

THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM 
PART  I 

AN  impression  often  prevails  that  the  Bible  is 
a  book  adapted  only  for  scholars,  and  that 
special  training  is  necessary  to  its  right  apprehension 
and  profitable  use.  That,  however,  is  a  grievous  mis- 
take. The  Bible  is  a  book  designed  not  for  scholars, 
but  for  men  ;  not  for  specialists  in  the  higher  walks 
of  life,  but  for  the  bulk  of  the  population  of  the 
world.  Scholarship  is  a  valuable  auxiliary,  but  only 
an  auxiliary.  Without  it  the  precise  signification  of 
words  cannot  be  ascertained.  The  scholar  must  be 
the  translator,  and  our  debt  to  scholarship  for  exact 
translations  is  great.  But  once  the  right  rendering 
is  ascertained,  the  linguistic  scholar  has  no  signal 
advantage  over  others. 

The  Bible  is  a  religious  book,  concerning  itself 
principally  about  the  spiritual  side  of  human  nature. 
Its  examination,  therefore,  needs  to  be  carried  on 
with  reverence  and  in  a  sympathetic  spirit.  Imagi- 
nation being  the  most  spiritual  faculty  in  man,  it 
follows  that  in  many  respects  the  poet  is  the  best 
commentator.  Where  the  exegete  saws  a  knot,  the 
poet  cuts  it.  Hence  the  illumination  of  Holy  Writ 
by  Dr.  Parker  in  his  People's  Bible,     He  never  brings 


2  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

forward  lexicons,  never  discusses  rules  of  grammar — 
he  intuitively  sees  the  heart  of  a  passage,  and  shows 
it  to  others,  without  the  aid  of  dissection  or  analysis. 
His  rich  imagination  serves  him  better  as  an  inter- 
preter of  the  inner  soul,  the  permanent  message,  of  a 
paragraph  of  Scripture  than  a  roomful  of  lexicons. 
By  this,  of  course,  is  not  meant  that  he  and  others 
do  not  use  lexicons  and  conform  to  the  rules  of 
syntax ;  but  they  do  not  carry  them  under  their 
arms  wherever  they  go,  discussing  them  instead  of 
the  Divine  Message.  The  cabinet-maker  does  not 
exhibit  his  tools  in  the  window — he  keeps  them  in 
the  workshop,  and  exhibits  for  sale  only  the  articles 
of  furniture  ready-made. 

There  are  two  ways  of  studying  nature.  One  is 
the  method  of  the  scientist,  who  investigates  the 
laws  of  nature,  calculates  the  distance  of  the  stars, 
weighs  the  air  in  balances,  analyses  the  flower  into 
its  chemical  elements.  Inestimable  is  the  service 
this  method  of  studying  nature  renders  to  humanity, 
the  method  which  has  created  modern  civilisation. 
The  other  is  the  method  of  the  poet,  and  is  as  old 
as  the  world.  The  poet  may  know  but  little  about 
physical  laws,  has  never  thought  how  many  tons 
of  gases  go  to  constitute  the  sun,  has  no  idea  how 
to  extract  the  aroma  from  the  rose  and  preserve  it 
in  a  corked  phial  ;  and  yet  he  is  acknowledged  to 
be  nearer  the  core  of  things  than  his  more  precise 
and  learned  brother. 

"Give  mc  a  theme,"  a  little  critic  cried, 

"And  I  will  do  my  part.' 
"  'Tis  not  a  theme  you  need, "  the  world  replied  ; 

"You  need  a  heart." 


THE    PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  3 

What  the  scientist  is  to  nature,  that  is  the  exegete 
to  the  Bible.  He  analyses,  dissects,  divides,  and  the 
service  he  renders  deserves  heartiest  recognition. 
The  man  of  feeling  and  imagination  sees  more  deeply, 
is  nearer  the  untold  Secret,  feels  more  profoundly  the 
inscrutable  Mystery  which  people  name  God.  Think 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  who,  according  to  modern 
theorists,  was  innocent  of  Hebrew  and  other  learn- 
ing requisite  to  literary  criticism, — how  straight  He 
walked  to  the  heart  of  truth !  "  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob :  God  is  not  the 
God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  "  (Mark  xii.  27). 
Mere  exegesis  had  failed  to  discover  in  that  verse  the 
truth  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  Lay  the  emphasis  on  the  present 
tense  of  the  verb,  and  you  cannot  strike  the  spark  ; 
throw  the  stress  on  the  substantive  God,  and  yet  you 
come  short  of  the  truth.  But  what  no  exegesis  could 
perceive  the  lively  pious  imagination  of  the  Saviour 
straightway  divined.  It  is  not  a  truth  of  exegesis, 
but  a  truth  of  poetry. 

Better,  however,  than  either  scholarship  or  imagi- 
nation is  faith,  a  good  honest  believing  heart — an 
inward  experience  of  the  objective  truths  of  Revela- 
tion. "  The  life  Is  the  light  of  men."  Not  the  light 
is  the  life,  but  the  life  is  the  light.  To  appreciate 
the  best  things  of  the  Bible,  we  must  read  it  not 
through  the  head,  but  through  the  heart.  Hence 
"  heart "  is  the  great  comprehensive  word  of  the  Old 
Testament,  whose  theology  is  primarily  that  of  the 
moral  nature.  Very  little  metaphysics  you  find,  the 
philosophy  which  Is  the  result  of  analytic  reflection  ; 
everything    is    concrete,    living,    actual.      The    man 


4  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

whose  heart  has  been  touched  by  Divine  truth,  who 
has  experienced  its  power  in  his  own  life,  who  has 
known  it  to  sweeten  the  bitter  waters  welling  up  from 
his  corrupt  nature,  will  not  be  easily  moved  by  the 
contrary  winds  of  speculative  scholarship.  His 
answer  is  ready — "  I  believe,  not  because  of  thy 
saying,  for  I  have  heard  Him  myself,  and  know  that 
this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 
Inward  experience  is  too  strong  for  the  acutest 
criticism  to  dislodge,  and  this  experience  is  the 
fundamental  qualification  to  rightly  understand  the 
Scriptures.  "  The  natural  man,"  however  much 
educated  and  trained,  "  receiveth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ; 
neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually 
discerned.  But  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things, 
yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no  man.  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  may  instruct  him? 
But  we  have  the  mind  of  Christ"  (i  Cor.  ii.  14-16). 

These  words  of  St.  Paul  must  not  be  explained 
away  as  conveying  an  exaggerated  meaning.  Be- 
tween the  psychical  man,  however  able  and  erudite, 
and  the  inner  meaning  of  God's  Word,  there  is  a 
fixed  barrier,  an  impenetrable  veil  ;  he  is  no  more 
entitled  to  pass  judgment  on  it  than  is  the  blind  to 
criticise  painting.  True,  the  blind  can  measure  the 
length  of  the  canvas,  can  even  pronounce  an  opinion 
on  its  make  and  texture  ;  but  when  the  painting  is 
under  discussion,  his  criticism  passes  like  the  idle 
whistling  wind.  Thus  the  psychical  man  may  dis- 
cuss documents,  examine  their  age  and  composition, 
and  this  is  the  function  of  Biblical  criticism  ;  but 
when  we  come  to  the  higher  verities,  the  supernatural 


THE    PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  5 

and  the  Divine,  he  possesses  not  the  competency 
necessary  to  pronounce  a  valid  judgment.  Let  the 
eyes  be  opened,  the  film  removed— in  other  words,  let 
the  man  be  born  again,  and  he  will  see  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  The  denials  of  one  class  and  the  theories 
of  another  he  brushes  like  cobwebs  aside.  "  He  that 
believeth  shall  not  make  haste."  Scholarship,  imagi- 
nation, experience — these  three  are  the  great  factors 
in  Biblical  interpretation ;  but  the  greatest  of  these  is 
experience,  the  very  qualification  within  the  reach  of 
the  mass  of  believers. 

The  permanent  value  of  books  and  their  real  con- 
tribution to  the  mental  and  spiritual  wealth  of  the 
world  are  not  to  be  estimated  by  the  din  and  noise 
attendant  on  their  publication.  It  is  easier  to  achieve 
reputation  as  a  destroyer  than  as  a  constructor,  as  an 
incendiary  than  as  a  builder.  Labour  the  year  long 
to  erect  a  house,  solid,  firm,  and  spacious,  and  no  one 
will  stop  to  inspect  your  work  or  give  you  a  word  of 
commendation.  But  set  fire  to  a  building,  and  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  town  will  congregate  to  wit- 
ness the  blaze,  and  there  will  be  more  talk  about 
one  house  burning  than  about  one  hundred  houses- 
building.  Popularity  always  waits  upon  works  of 
destruction.  The  same  principle  operates  largely  in 
the  world  of  mind.  Attack  the  cherished  beliefs  of 
mankind,  attempt  to  undermine  the  hallowed  faith  of 
millenniums,  contradict  the  affirmations  of  the  wisest 
and  best  of  the  race,  and  you  will  command  attention 
beyond  your  real  deserts.  To  the  fascination  of  this 
false  glamour  are  especially  exposed  the  young 
people  of  the  present  day,  who  are  in  danger  of 
mistaking  a  distant  bonfire  for  the  rising  sun. 


6  PRIMEVAL   RE^^ELATION 

"  Those  whom  the  age  deh'ghts  to  honour,"  writes 
Dr.  Munro  Gibson,  "  are  not  the  builders,  but  the 
destroyers ;  not  those  who  open  new  windows  in 
heaven,  but  those  who  are  most  assiduous  in  their 
efforts  to  close  the  old  ones  ;  not  those  who  seek 
to  build  our  knowledge  of  spiritual  things  on  sure 
foundations,  but  those  who  are  trying  to  loosen  the 
old  foundations  or  undermine  them  altogether.  It 
would  seem  as  if  the  signs  of  the  times  almost 
justified  our  taking  up  the  lament  of  the  bard  of 
old  :  '  A  man  was  famous  according  as  he  had  lifted 
up  axes  upon  the  thick  trees.  But  now  they  break 
down  the  carved  work  thereof  at  once  with  axes  and 
hammers '  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  5,  6).  The  time  was,  when 
a  man  that  would  go  out  into  the  forest  and  gather 
material  for  building  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  was 
the  man  whom  the  people  delighted  to  honour.  But 
now  the  man  that  uses  axe  and  hammer,  not  in 
making  anything  new  of  his  own,  or  in  making  any- 
thing at  all,  but  in  hacking  and  marring  the  carved 
work  of  God's  sanctuary,  is  sure  to  be  cheered  on 
by  a  sufficient  number  of  thoughtless  sympathisers. 
No  one  who  has  watched  the  signs  of  the  times  at 
all  closely,  will  be  disposed  to  doubt  that,  if  there 
were  issued  at  the  same  time  two  works  on  religious 
themes  by  authors  equally  well  known  and  of  equal 
ability,  the  one  constructive  and  the  other  destructive, 
the  one  conservative  and  the  other  critical,  the  latter 
would  have  a  very  much  larger  sale,  and  attract 
much  greater  attention  than  the  other."  ^ 

The  popularity,  however,  of  this  class  of  books 
is  shortlived.  "It  cometh  up  in  a  night,  and  in 
•  The  Ages  before  Moses,  p.  12. 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  7 

a  night  perisheth."  To  be  original  and  novel  is 
comparatively  easy  when  you  leave  the  king's  high- 
way, striking  across  the  fields,  and  having  only  the 
virgin  soil  upon  which  to  leave  the  print  of  your 
foot.  The  difficulty  is  to  walk  along  the  highroad 
of  thought,  trodden  by  the  feet  of  hundreds  of  deep 
thinkers,  and  yet  to  step  sufficiently  heavy  to  leave 
your  mark  for  the  next  generation  to  see.  This 
alone  is  worth  striving  for. 

These  remarks  are  made  in  view  of  the  prominence 
given  in  the  magazine  literature  of  the  day  to  the 
negative  school  in  Biblical  criticism.  Because  of 
this  prominence  many  young  people  are  apt  to 
imagine  that  the  so-called  Higher  Critics  surpass 
all  others  in  scholarship,  ability,  and  insight.  Not 
necessarily.  Remember  that  able  scholars  are  ranked 
on  the  one  side  as  well  as  on  the  other  ;  let  us  not 
therefore  be  blinded  by  mere  glitter.  "  Try  the 
spirits  whether  they  be  of  God."  In  every  age  the 
Bible  has  met  with  stout-hearted  opponents.  The 
same  cavilling  spirit  which  led  the  critics  a  century 
ago  to  deny  the  Homeric  authorship  of  the  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  and  which  half  a  century  later  induced 
them  to  traverse  the  apostolic  authorship  of  the 
New  Testament,  now  instigates  them  to  question 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  first  section  of  the  Old 
Testament.  But  as  in  the  first  two  instances  the 
attempt,  though  characterised  by  apparently  extra- 
ordinary analytic  perception,  signally  failed,  so,  I 
feel  confident,  in  the  present  case  the  Higher  Criticism 
will  have  to  beat  a  retreat. 

After  Astruc,  the  physician  of  Louis  XIV.,  called 
attention  in  1753  to  the  systematic  occurrence  of  the 


8  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

words  God  and   Lord,  Elohim   and  Jehovah,  in  the 
composition   of  Genesis,  and    therefore   to   two   sets 
of    documents — a   valuable   discovery   and    accepted 
by  most    modern    theologians— the  members  of  the 
French  Academy  utilised  their  ingenuity  to  convert 
it  into  an  indictment,  not  only  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the    Pentateuch,  but  of  the  supernatural  in 
general.     From  the    French  Academicians  it  passed 
into    the   hands   of   the    more    patient   and    learned 
Germans,   the    majority  of  whom  were  animated   by 
a   spirit   of  antagonism  to  faith  in  the  supernatural. 
Graf,    Kuenen,^    and    Wellhausen,   the    three    great 
champions  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  are  avowed  dis- 
believers in  the  supernatural.     That  is  to  say,  they 
scout  both   miracle  and   prophecy ;    to  them   Divine 
inspiration  is  an  idle  dream.     This  is  not  mentioned 
to   their  prejudice  or  to  the  disparagement  of  their 
labours ;    but   that   our   young  men    may  grasp   the 
situation,  and  discern  the  real  kernel  of  the  contro- 
versy that  is  now  waging.     It  is  a  battle  between  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural,  between  faith  in  God 
as  the  mere  God  of  nature  and  faith  in  Him  as  also 
the  God  of  grace.     The  celebrated  advocates  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  already  named   are  disbelievers   in 
miracle,  in  prophecy,   in   inspiration,  in  the   divinity 
of  Christ — in  a  word,  in  the  whole  scheme  of  redemp- 
tive grace.     Their   herculean    labours   in    connection 
with  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  they  under- 
took with  the  express  object  of  explaining  the  rise 
of  the  religion  of  Israel  on  purely  naturalistic  grounds, 
without  any  special   Divine  intervention  in  the  way 
of  revelation    or    inspiration.      With    what    result? 
^  Kuenen  is  a  Dutchman. 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  9 

With  the  result  that  they  deny  the  historic  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Pentateuch.  Genesis  is  myth, 
fiction,  legend — everything  but  reliable  history. 
Even  our  English  Professor  Cheyne  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  that  our  children  should  be  taught  after 
a  certain  age  that  Genesis  is  not  history,  only  a 
compilation  of  legendary  lore.^ 

In  passing  over  from  Germany  into  England,  the 
Higher  Criticism    underwent    a   decided    change   for 
the  better,  not  in  scholarship,  but   in  faith.     At  all 
events,   it   passed   into   the   hands   of   scholars   who 
profess  to  be  believers  in  the  supernatural.     But  be 
that   as    it    may,   from    a   Christian    standpoint    the 
pedigree  is   bad.     No  theories  from   such  a  quarter 
should  be  entertained  without  a  scrupulous  examina- 
tion  of  their    credentials ;    and    not   till    scholars   of 
Christian    repute,    like    Canon    Driver   and    the    late 
Professor  Robertson    Smith,  became    the  godfathers 
of  the   Higher  Criticism,  did  it  find  welcome  and  a 
home  in  the  churches,  or  rather  the  manses,  of  Great 
Britain.     When  the  Greeks  could  not  capture  Troy 
by  force  of  arms,  they  resorted,  says   the   story,  to 
guile.     Professing  great  admiration  for  the  valour  of 
the  Trojans,  they  sent  the  latter  a  present  of  a  large 
wooden   horse.     Flattered  by  this  rare  testimony  to 
their  intrepidity,  the  Trojans  innocently  opened  the 
city  gates  to  admit  of  the  entrance  of  the  Grecian 
gift.     But    concealed    within    the    wooden    structure 
were  mighty  armed  warriors,  who,  rushing  out  under 
the  cover  of  night,  opened  the  gates  for  the  enemy 
to    enter.     What   they   failed    to   do   by  force,  they 
accomplished    by  stratagem.     It   is   always  risky  to 
^  Contem^porary  Review^  vol.  Ixvi.,  p.  91. 


10  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

receive  presents  from  the  Greeks.  Down  to  within 
a  few  years  the  Higher  Critics  were  outside  the  walls 
of  the  Christian  Church,  vehement  deniers  of  the 
supernatural  ;  now  they  are  to  be  found  within  its 
precincts,  and  it  behoves  us  to  examine  their  pre- 
tensions with  the  greatest  care. 

The    English   critics    profess   faith    in    the    super- 
natural,    and    their    testimony    we    gladly    receive. 
Their  faith  in  the  Pentateuch  as  an  inspired  produc- 
tion, however,  I  am  not  able  to  reconcile  with  their 
faith  in  their  own  criticism  regarding  its  composition. 
If  Canon  Driver  can,  he  ought  to  do  it  with  all  speed, 
for  it  would  disarm  much  opposition  and  allay  many 
apprehensions.       His    attempts     heretofore     in    this 
direction     cannot    be     considered    satisfactory.     To 
further  assure  my  own  mind  on  the  subject,  I  have 
taken    the     precaution    of    reperusing    the    learned 
canon's  volume  of  sermons   on  the  Old   Testament, 
published  to  show  how  the  Christian  faith  comports 
with   the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism.     The  im- 
pression left  upon  me  is  that  there  is  a  distinct  fall 
in    the  moral  temperature   the    moment   he   touches 
the   supernatural — all    enthusiasm  seems   to  die  out. 
The  supernatural  he  reduces  to  the  lowest  minimum 
possible  ;  but  I  see  not  why  the  supernatural  should 
be   admitted  at  all,  unless   it  be  admitted    to  some 
purpose.     Such    preaching    would    never    save    the 
world,  nor  lift  the  Church  to  a  higher  plane  in  the 
spiritual    life.     Of   course,    in    a    scholar,    in    whom 
the  critical    temperament    has   been    highly    trained, 
much    enthusiasm    is    not    to     be     expected  ;     and 
yet   the    lack    of   it    is  a    serious   disqualification  to 
understand    Moses   or  interpret  Isaiah — men    whose 


THE   PENTATEUCH    AND   CRITICISM  II 

moral    nature    was     all     aflame     with     the    fire    of 
God. 

Dr.  Delitzsch,  whilst  adopting  the  view  of  the  more 
recent  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form,  firmly  maintains  its  pre-existence  in  a  more 
ancient  form.  The  historicity  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
with  him  a  cardinal  article  of  faith.  The  existence 
of  the  Tabernacle,  the  prevalence  of  the  chief  festi- 
vals, and  the  institution  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood 
from  the  Mosaic  age  he  unhesitatingly  accepts. 
The  orations  attributed  to  Moses  in  Deuteronomy 
he  considers  to  be  not  inventions  or  dramatisations, 
but  literary  enlargements  of  authentic  discourses 
of  the  lawgiver,  just  as  the  discourses  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  by  the  evange- 
list drawn  out,  and  their  inner  meaning  evoked 
thereby  into  greater  clearness.  In  the  introduction 
to  his  commentary  on  Genesis,  Dr.  Delitzsch  con- 
tinually refers  to  national  traditions  as  furnishing 
reliable  material  to  the  more  recent  compilers. 
Though  he  does  not  say  whether  he  means  oral  or 
written  traditions,  yet  we  are  justified  in  concluding 
that  he  comprises  both.  Canon  Driver  also  drops 
hints  which  would  imply  that  this  is  also  his  stand- 
point ;  yet  he  does  not  separate  himself  with  the 
same  decision  as  Delitzsch  from  the  Wellhausen 
school.  To  the  theory  of  Delitzsch  orthodox  theo- 
logians could,  from  the  point  of  view  of  doctrine, 
offer  no  great  resistance  ;  for,  though  admitting  that 
the  present  form  of  the  Pentateuch  is  post-exilic,  he 
yet  strenuously  maintains  that  the  substance  of  the 
legislation  and  much  of  its  language  stretch  back  to 
the  Mosaic   age,  and    that   the  books    are   therefore 


12  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

historically  credible.  Delitzsch  agrees  in  essence  with 
the  orthodox  view,  and  is  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
theory  of  VVellhausen,  so  enthusiastically  espoused  in 
this  country  by  the  late  Robertson  Smith,  especially 
in  its  attempt  at  the  reconstruction  of  Israelite 
history. 

From  the  critics  I  pass  on  to  their  criticisms. 
Here,  however,  be  it  remarked  that  I  do  not  imagine 
for  a  moment  that  the  traditional  view  does  not  need 
rectification— our  views  of  all  the  doctrines  need 
rectification  from  time  to  time.  What  is  protested 
against  is  not  its  rectification,  but  its  total  subversion. 
Let  us  then  inquire  what  the  two  views  are  in  their 
main  features,  for  our  limits  will  not  allow  of  our 
entering  into  details  and  examining  all  the  proposed 
modifications  of  the  one  or  the  other. 

What  is  the  modern  analytic  view?  That  the 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  (or  Hexateuch),  with  the 
exception  perhaps  of  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.,  were  not 
composed  till  about  the  time  of  the  Exile— a  little 
before  and  a  little  after  ;  therefore,  long  subsequent 
to  the  transpiration  of  the  events  whose  history  they 
record.  To  the  Pentateuch  are  ascribed  from  seven 
to  twelve  successive  authors,  and  the  critics  profess 
ability  to  apportion  to  each  his  share  of  the  work, 
even  to  the  dividing  of  a  sentence  in  half.  The 
authors,  living  between  the  age  of  Hezekiah  and 
Ezra,  projected  their  own  ideas  into  the  bygone 
times,  so  that  Genesis  and  Exodus  do  not  pourtray 
the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  ages,  but  the  times  of 
the  writers  themselves,  wJio  painted  on  the  canvas  of 
the  past  the  ideas  of  the  then  present.  Mark  that  well. 
In  order  to  do  the  Higher  Critics  full  justice  I  will 


THE    PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  1 3 

here  quote  the  language  of  the  learned  and  venerable 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  as  to  their  method  of 
procedure  :  "  First,  the  Elohistic  narrative.  Next  the 
Jehovistic  story-book.  But  this  division  does  not 
meet  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  A  third  writer 
has  to  be  invented,  who  partakes  of  some  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  both  the  Jehovist  and  Elohist.  These 
three  contributors  are  distinguished  by  the  letters 
E,  J,  and  JE.  A  fourth  or  fifth  or  sixth  is  the 
Deuteronomist,  and  others  who  write  in  his  spirit, 
marked  by  the  letters  D,  D\  Dl  But  the  combined 
labours  of  E  and  J  and  JE  and  the  D's  did  not  come 
into  their  present  shape  at  once.  We  have  to  dis- 
tinguish as  separate  works  :  (i)  The  Priestly  Code, 
comprising  Leviticus  and  the  allied  portions  of  Exodus 
and  Numbers,  and  this  again  is  subdivided  into  P\ 
P^  P^  according  as  they  wrote  in  the  priestly  spirit. 
(2)  The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  comprising  Exod. 
xxi.-xxiii.,  and  other  passages  relating  to  Covenants 
represented  by  Q,  meaning  four.  (3)  Deuteronomy, 
and  according  to  some  a  Book  of  Holiness.  It  is 
also  thought  that  some  other  fragments  and  inter- 
polations may  have  gone  to  make  up  the  whole. 
And  then,  finally,  there  is  R,  the  Redactor  or  Editor 
of  the  whole  Hexateuch,  and  successive  redactors, 
as  R^  R^  etc."  ^ 

In  the  name  of  common  sense  and  universal 
experience,  I  venture  to  ask.  Was  ever  a  book  com- 
posed like  that  ?  was  ever  a  book  criticised  like 
that  ?  It  reminds  me  of  the  criticisms  passed  upon 
our  countryman's  song,  "  God  bless  the  Prince  of 
Wales."  On  its  publication  such  was  its  popularity 
^  Examination  of  the  Two  Books  of  Chronicles. 


14  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

that  it  provoked  the  hostiHty  of  a  number  of  metro- 
politan critics.  The  composition  was  declared  to  be 
devoid  of  originality,  a  fragment  of  a  bar  being 
found  in  a  certain  oratorio,  another  combination 
of  two  or  three  notes  found  in  another  song,  till  at 
last  the  leading  comic  paper  gave  the  over-acute 
critics  their  quietus  by  solemnly  undertaking  to  find 
every  single  note  in  music  previously  published. 
Thereupon  the  charge  of  plagiarism  fell  flat,  and 
the  song  lives,  second  only  in  popularity  to  the 
national  anthem.  Not  dissimilar  is  the  method  where- 
by the  Higher  Critics  have  conducted  their  analysis 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  common  sense,  not  only  of 
the  mass  of  readers,  but  of  trained  critics  in  other 
departments  of  literature,  is  shocked,  and  signs  are 
not  wanting  that  British  and  Continental  scholarship 
is  veering  round — a  reaction,  it  would  seem,  has 
already  set  in. 

What  is  the  orthodox  or  conservative  view  ?  That 
the  Pentateuch  is  substantially  the  work  of  Moses 
and  his  helpers.  He  was  an  eye  and  ear  witness  of 
all  the  transactions  recorded  in  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy ;  consequently  there  is 
no  mystery  as  to  the  materials  for,  or  the  manner 
of,  their  composition. 

But  as  Genesis  deals  with  events  in  the  remote 
past,  in  its  preparation  he  must  have  resorted  to 
another  method.  What  was  that  method  ?  No 
theologian  ever  imagined  that  he  received  the  patri- 
archal and  antediluvian  history  ready-made  from 
heaven.  The  view  of  all  sane  theologians  is  that 
Moses  wrote  the  book  under  the  same  conditions 
as   other   historians.       He   did    not    receive    historic 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  1 5 

truth  by  revelation — he  had  to  search  for  it  Hke 
all  other  investigators.  He  gathered  information 
from  folklore  and  oral  tradition,  collected  whatever 
documents  he  could.  With  these  materials  in  his 
possession  he  sat  down  to  write  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
How  does  he  proceed  ?  Does  he  disguise  the  originals 
by  paraphrasing  them  in  his  own  language  so  that 
one  uniform  style  might  pervade  the  whole  ?  No ; 
that  is  the  modern  European  style,  which  converts 
a  book  into  a  copyright,  and  seeks  out  of  authorship 
to  make  money  and  reputation.  Moses  proceeds  in 
the  Oriental  fashion,  letting  characters  and  facts 
proclaim  themselves.  He  examines  his  authorities 
carefully,  compares  them  scrupulously,  excises  what 
is  incompatible  with  the  object  in  view.  He  then 
writes  his  history,  inserting  here  an  extract  and 
there  a  quotation,  and  making  of  the  fragments  one 
continuous  and  consistent  whole,  interpreting  the 
facts  in  the  light  of  the  religious  idea, — the  idea 
of  God  working  out  the  salvation  of  the  world 
through  an  elect  people.  Genesis  is  then  a  com- 
pilation. Why  not  ?  Is  not  all  history  a  com- 
pilation ?  And  the  more  the  original  authorities 
are  allowed  to  speak,  the  more  faithful  and  reliable 
the  history. 

According  to  this  view,  where  is  inspiration  ? 
Inspiration  for  its  own  sake  is  of  no  value.  The 
doctrine  of  inspiration  is  of  value  only  as  a  guarantee 
of  truth.  If  we  are  persuaded  of  the  truth  without 
inspiration,  we  occupy  exactly  the  same  ground  as 
if  there  were  inspiration.  Inspiration  does  not  make 
truth  error  or  error  truth.  The  doctrine  of  inspiration 
cannot  make  the  Bible  truer  than  it  is,  but   to  us 


l6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

it  is  a  guarantee  of  its  veracity.  Do  I  then  believe 
in  the  inspiration  of  Genesis  ?  Certainly,  in  a  double 
sense. 

First,  in  a  religious  history  of  such  vast  consequence 
to  the  race,  I  believe  that  Moses  was  not  left  to  the 
exercise  of  his  unaided,  unillumined  judgment.  In 
the  selections  he  made,  the  combinations  he  effected, 
and  the  new  light  he  shed  on  the  whole  through  the 
predominance  of  the  religious  idea,  he  was  divinely 
guided.  If  he  were  not,  then  he  was  a  tenfold  greater 
genius  than  he  is  generally  represented  to  be.  Observe 
the  elevation  of  his  style,  the  purity  of  his  thoughts, 
the  inerrancy  of  his  moral  instincts.  An  aged  minister, 
narrating  his  religious  experience  in  a  synod  of  our 
Church,  being  asked  if  he  read  much  of  the  books 
of  Moses,  made  answer,  "  Yes,  especially  Genesis ; 
I  read  the  other  books,  but  Genesis  is  my  favourite — 
I  get  more  spiritual  good  out  of  Genesis."  Though 
only  a  young  man  of  about  eighteen,  my  attention 
was  particularly  arrested  by  the  old  man's  testimony 
— I  was  filled  with  amazement  that  the  oldest  book 
in  the  world  should  contain  so  much  spiritual  aliment 
for  nineteenth-century  Christians.  No  mere  human 
intellect,  it  seems  to  me,  was  capable  of  producing 
such  a  book,  so  free  from  everything  degrading  and 
fantastic,  so  rich  in  spiritual  truth.  Able,  learned 
men  in  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  other  countries  were 
contemporaries  of  Moses  ;  yet  none  left  behind  them 
memorials  comparable  to  these.  How  to  account 
for  the  difference  ?  Only  on  the  ground  of  the 
supernatural.  Moses'  genius  was  doubtless  transcen- 
dent, and  yet  we  cannot  conceive  that  he,  by  dint 
of  mere  genius,  so  surpassed  his  contemporaries  as 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  1/ 

to  produce  Genesis.     Moses'  genius  could  not  do  it  ; 
his  genius,  divinely  inspired,  could,  and  did. 

Second,  in  the  sense  that  Genesis  is  a  record  of 
inspired  men.  Moses  is  the  first  Biblical  writer,  but 
not  the  first  inspired  man.  The  authors  of  Holy 
Writ  were  not  the  only  inspired  men  of  antiquity. 
Inspiration  was  not  confined  to  writing — it  extended 
to  thinking,  feeling,  speaking,  acting.  Enoch  and 
Noah  in  the  antediluvian  world,  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  in  patriarchal  times,  were  all  inspired 
men,  leading  inspired  lives,  speaking  inspired  words, 
performing  inspired  deeds.  Genesis  is  an  inspired 
record  of  inspired  men.  In  the  progress  of  the 
centuries  the  book  was  frequently  transcribed.  Con- 
sidering the  character  and  material  of  ancient  writing, 
it  was  inevitable  that  mistakes  should  creep  in  ;  and 
it  is  possible,  nay,  probable,  that  explanatory  notes 
were  added  to  make  clear  to  the  copyists'  contem- 
poraries what  appeared  to  them  obscure.  This 
perhaps  suffices  to  explain  the  supposed  anachro- 
nisms, or  a  large  number  of  them,  on  which  modern 
criticism  has  so  tenaciously  fastened — such  as  the 
references  to  the  Canaanites,  the  enumeration  of 
the  kings  of  Edom,  and  the  identification  of  ancient 
place-names  by  their  more  recent  equivalents.  Strike 
out  all  these  anachronisms,  and  it  makes  not  the 
slightest  difference  to  the  trend  or  completeness  of 
the  story. 

Personally  I  am  prepared  to  go  further,  and  the 
majority  of  Christian  ministers  will  not,  I  believe, 
demur,  viz.,  to  concede  that  Moses  did  not  reduce 
the  Pentateuch  into  one  continuous  roll  or  book.  It 
was   probably  composed   in  fragments   as   occasions 

2 


1 8  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

demanded  and  opportunities  arose,  during  the  forty 
years'  wanderings    in   the   wilderness  ;    in   this   frag- 
mentary  state    it   was    probably   left    at   his   death. 
He    had    neither   leisure   nor    facilities   for   revision ; 
and  the  first  copy  of  every  work  is  somewhat  rough 
and  uneven.     In  after-times,  with  the  development  of 
literature  and  religion,  these  fragments  were  probably 
cemented  together   into   one   continuous  whole,  and 
in   the   hands   of  successive  editors    underwent  here 
and  there  minor  changes,  certain  modifications  in  the 
legislation    in   the  face   of  new  circumstances  being 
unavoidable.     That  it   did   not  attain  its   final  form 
till  the  days  of  Ezra  is  probably  true  ;  but  what  of 
it  in  its  preceding  forms?     What  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered  the  date  of  the  publication  of  a  book,  that 
of  the   first  or   that  of  the  last  edition  ?     Through 
how  many  editions  the  Pentateuch  went  we  cannot 
tell  ;    what  were   the    minor   alterations   successively 
introduced    escapes    our   ken  ;   still    the  books  com- 
posing it,   in  all   their   essentials,   remain   the   same. 
The  central  truth  in  the  traditional  view,  for  which 
we    contend,  is — tJie   historical  trustwortJiiness  of  the 
PentateucJi. 


PART    II 

HAVING  roughly  sketched  the  two  hypotheses, 
the  constructive  and  the  destructive,  the  tradi- 
tional and  the  negative,  let  us  proceed  to  consider 
which  we  shall  choose.  For  myself  I  may  say  that 
I  have  examined  their  respective  claims  carefully 
as  presented  in  the  standard  works,  weighed  them 
conscientiously  in  the  balance,  once  and  again  wavered 
in  my  decision.  Yet  the  longer  and  more  compre- 
hensively I  examined  them,  the  more  convinced  I 
became  that  the  traditional  view  is  the  truer,  without 
of  course  maintaining  for  it  in  all  details  absolute 
accuracy.  The  charge  has  been  made  that  specialists 
grow  contracted  in  their  view  till  gradually  they 
become  incapable  of  surveying  arguments  in  their 
relative  importance  and  large  bearings.  The  con- 
tentions of  the  Higher  Critics  seem  to  some  extent 
to  sustain  the  accusation. 

Take  the  following  examples,  and  I  name  these 
because,  so  to  speak,  they  are  intellectually  portabl9^^ 
young  men,  whose  acquaintance  with  the  controversy 
is  somewhat  limited,  being  much  influenced  by  them. 
"  It  is  made  a  difficulty  that,  in  the  last  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  no  one  supposes  of  the  same 
age  as  the  earlier  part  of  the  book,  the  town  of  Dan 
is  thus  named,  though  it  was  known  as  Laish  till  the 

19 


20  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

days  of  the  Judges.  That  such  additions  have  been 
made  here  and  there  to  the  historical  notices  of  the 
earlier  books,  by  revisers  of  different  periods,  is 
assumed  to  prove  that  the  historical  portions  of 
the  first  books  of  the  Bible  were  written  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,  and  that  not  before  the  period  of  the 
Kings  !  The  words  '  on  this  side  Jordan/  in  Deut. 
i.  I,  it  is  said,  ought  to  be  translated  'across  the 
Jordan,'  in  which  case  they  would  show  that  the 
writer  lived  in  West  Palestine.  Etymologically 
*  'cbcrl  the  word  used,  means  '  across  ' ;  but  unfortu- 
nately for  the  new  critics,  it  was  employed  arbitrarily, 
for  both  east  and  west,  when  Deuteronomy  was 
written,  without  reference  to  the  relative  position 
of  the  Jordan,  or  other  natural  boundary,  leaving 
its  meaning  to  be  gathered  from  an  additional  word 
of  explanation.  Thus,  in  Num.  xxxii.  19,  we 
read, '  P'or  we  will  not  inherit  with  them  on  yonder 
side  \ineeber'\  the  Jordan,  and  forward  [or  thence 
on]  ;  because  our  inheritance  is  fallen  to  us  on  this 
side  \7neebcr\  Jordan  eastw^ard '  ;  so  that  in  this 
verse  '^eber  stands  for  both  east  and  west  of  the 
Jordan.  The  word,  ultimately,  after  the  conquest 
of  Canaan,  was  applied  to  the  east  side  of  Jordan  ; 
as  Perea,  which  means  the  same,  was  at  a  still  later 
period :  but,  when  the  Pentateuch  was  written,  it 
was  used  indifferently  of  the  east  and  west,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  temporary  position  of  the  Hebrews,  who 
were  still  on  the  eastern  side.  Its  meaning  in  the 
first  verse  of  Deuteronomy  is,  moreover,  at  once 
conclusively  proved  from  the  fact  that  the  various 
places  mentioned  as  marking  the  region  intended 
arc  all  on  the  east  of  Jordan. 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  21 

"  We  are  further  told  that  the  Pentateuch  could 
not  have  been  written  by  Moses,  from  the  use  of  the 
word  yduiniah — '  towards  the  sea  ' — for  westward  ; 
and  of  Negeb,  the  name  employed  for  the  southern 
uplands  of  Judah,  for  the  south.  *  At  Mount  Sinai,' 
it  is  said,  '  the  sea  did  not  lie  to  the  west,  and  the 
Negeb  was  to  the  north.'  '  If  the  writer  lived  in 
Palestine,  however,  the  expressions  would  be  correct.'  ^ 
But  it  is  forgotten  that  the  Hebrews  had  spoken  the 
language  of  Palestine  for  centuries  before  the  birth 
of  Moses,  and  must  have  adopted  and  used  its 
ordinary  geographical  expressions,  in  the  popular 
and  not  the  etymological  sense.  Our  word  '  south  ' 
means  '  towards  the  sun '  ;  but  surely  an  Australian 
is  not  wrong  in  calling  Melbourne  south  of  Sydney, 
though  to  him  it  is  not  really  south,  that  is,  towards 
the  sun,  but  north.  Does  he  say  that  he  goes  south 
to  India,  because  that  country  is  etymologically 
south  from  Australia  ?  "  ^ 

Seeing  that  these  and  similar  instances  are  per- 
fectly explicable  on  the  traditional  view,  one  feels 
that  Robertson  Smith  and  others  likeminded  have 
pressed  them  beyond  the  limits  of  just  and  impartial 
criticism.  The  hypothesis  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
doubtless  removes  many  minor  difficulties,  and  the 
consideration  of  this  inclined  my  judgment  in  its 
favour.  But  on  further  examination  I  discovered 
that  it  creates  new  difficulties,  graver,  more  funda- 
mental, and  more  numerous  than  those  it  removes. 
I  shall  now  enumerate  in  a  general  way  the  reasons 

^  Robertson  Smith,  Bible  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  t^it^. 
2  Dr.  Cunningham  Geikie,  Hours  with  the  Bible,  vol.  v., 
chap.  X. 


22  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

which  have  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  the  old 
hypothesis,  somewhat  rectified,  is  preferable  to  the 
new. 

I.  The  traditional  hypothesis  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  has,  it  seems  to  me,  fewer 
literary  difficulties  to  contend  with. 

Years  ago  it  was  customary  to  object  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  on  the  ground  that  the  art  of 
writing  was  not  sufficiently  developed  for  the  pro- 
duction of  such  a  large  and  bulky  volume  as  the 
Pentateuch.  By  to-day,  however,  that  objection  has 
lost  its  force,  for  archaeological  research  indisputably 
shows  that  the  age  of  Moses  and  the  ages  immedi- 
ately preceding  were  full  of  literary  activity.  Pro- 
fessor Sayce  tells  us  that  in  that  century  "good 
schools  existed  throughout  Western  Asia,  that  the 
people  of  Canaan  could  read  and  write  before  the 
Israelitish  conquest,  that  there  was  an  active  literary 
intercourse  from  one  end  of  the  civilised  east  to  the 
other."  ^  The  recently  discovered  library  of  Assur- 
banipal  affords  sufficient  evidence  that  this  presenta- 
tion of  the  then  state  of  education  is  not  exaggerated 
or  overdrawn. 

Closely  allied  with  this  is  the  objection  that  the 
richness  of  the  vocabulary  and  the  easy  flow  of  the 
language  are  such  as  to  indicate  that  the  composition 
of  the  Pentateuch  must  belong  to  the  golden  period  of 
the  Hebrew  tongue,  that  the  comparative  excellence 
of  its  style  is  inconsistent  with  its  early  production 
during  the  desert  wanderings.  Unfortunately  we 
have  no  Hebrew  writing  outside  Holy  Writ  to  enable 
us  to  institute  a  comparison.  If  we  wanted  to  base 
'  Cu7item;porary  Review^  August,  1888. 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  23 

an  argument  on  the  English  of  the  Authorised  Version 
of  the  Bible,  it  could  be  done  by  appcaHng  to  earlier 
and  later  writings.  For  instance,  if  the  word  "  its " 
was  used  in  a  book,  we  would  be  presumably  right 
in  fixing  its  date  after  the  year  1600,  for  before  that 
time  its  employment  is  doubtful.  Its  total  absence 
from  the  English  Bible  shows  that  the  translation 
of  the  latter  was  made  at  or  before  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
Pentateuch  there  is  no  Hebrew  book  older  than 
itself,  and  no  contemporaneous  writing  by  which  to 
test  its  literary  style. 

Comparing  the  language  of  Jeremiah  with  that 
of  the  Pentateuch,  the  change,  it  must  be  conceded, 
is  not  so  striking  as  might  beforehand  be  expected. 
But  ancient  times  should  not  be  compared  with 
modern,  so  full  of  stress  and  rush  :  that  would  be 
as  unfair  as  to  compare  the  speed  of  the  Palestinian 
ass  with  that  of  the  British  locomotive.  In  Oriental 
climes  changes  are  few  and  slow — fewer  and  slower 
of  yore  than  in  the  present  day.  Besides,  we  have 
parallel  cases  in  other  languages.  The  Latin  of 
Plautus  differs  but  slightly  from  that  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  eight  hundred  years  afterwards.  The  Greek  of 
Thucydides  is  reproduced  with  comparative  perfection 
in  Procopius,  one  thousand  years  later.  Brugsch 
speaks  of  two  Egyptian  papyri  which,  though  in  the 
date  of  their  composition  separated  by  one  thousand 
years,  are  practically  identical  in  language  and 
grammar.  According  to  Freytag,  the  Arabic  spoken 
to-day  at  Mecca  is  in  vocabulary  and  syntax,  in  every 
essential,  the  same  as  that  of  the  Koran.  Twelve 
hundred    years    have    passed    since     the     days     of 


24  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Mohammed,  yet  the  language  has  undergone  no 
perceptible  change.  Bear  further  in  mind  that  the 
Pentateuch  itself  was  preventive  of  rapid  vicissitudes 
in  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  language.  That  the 
Bible  always  tends  to  check  linguistic  changes  is  a 
well-established  fact.  The  English  Bible  practically 
stereotyped  the  English  tongue.  How  rapid  the 
changes  between  Chaucer  and  the  Authorised 
Version  !  how  few  the  changes  since !  The  Penta- 
teuch, being  according  to  the  traditional  view  the 
great  textbook  of  the  nation,  and  especially  of  its 
master-minds,  would  inevitably  fix  their  language 
and  mould  their  style. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  ana- 
chronisms contained  in  the  first  five  books — that 
is,  to  statements  which  could  only  have  been  made 
after  the  settlement  of  Israel  in  the  Promised  Land, 
That  these  difficulties  exist  is  patent  to  all,  and 
that  the  new  hypothesis  explains  them  better  than 
the  old  cannot  in  fairness  be  denied.  Take,  for 
example,  the  following  :  Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7,  xxxvi. 
31-39,  xiv.  14;  Num.  xxxii.  40-43;  Deut.  xxxiv. 
I,  10.  Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain 
them  on  the  supposition  that  they  had  been  written 
in  the  Mosaic  age  ;  but  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that 
they  have  been  completely  successful.  However, 
on  the  rectified  theory  already  sketched,  their  elu- 
cidation is  feasible — namely,  by  viewing  them  as 
explanatory  additions  inserted  by  later  editors  or 
redactors,  with  a  view  to  make  clear  what  might  to 
late  readers  appear  obscure. 

While  the  anachronisms  may  thus,  on  the  traditional 
view,  be  satisfactorily  accounted   for,  without  doing 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  25 

violence  to  the  body  of  the  history,  how  do  the 
Higher  Critics  explain  the  abounding  archaisms 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch  ?  The  anachronisms 
altogether  do  not  amount  to  more  than  twenty  or 
thereabout ;  the  archaic  idioms  and  other  peculiari- 
ties of  vocabulary  amount  to  several  scores.  The 
orthodox  theologians  naturally  endeavour  to  mini- 
mise the  anachronisms  and  multiply  the  archaisms, 
for  human  nature  will  assert  itself  in  the  best  of 
men.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Higher  Critics  make 
mountains  of  every  molehill  in  the  shape  of  an 
anachronism  or  apparent  discrepancy,  and  strive  to 
explain  away  everything  which  appears  antique,  and 
therefore  inimical  to  their  theory.  This  tendency 
is  perfectly  manifest  in  so  sober-minded  a  writer  as 
Dr.  Driver,  not  to  mention  the  more  extreme  men. 
How  slow  he  is  to  perceive,  or  at  least  to  acknow- 
ledge, the  thousand  disagreements  in  the  writings 
of  his  own  school  ;  and  yet  how  quick  to  detect  and 
accentuate  every  apparent  inconsistency,  however 
infinitesimally  small,  in  the  supposed  writings  of 
Moses !  But  notwithstanding  all  efforts  to  slur  them 
over,  archaic  idioms  and  linguistic  peculiarities  do 
exist  in  the  Pentateuch. 

By  a  rare  effort  of  labour,  "  Jahn  made  a  collection 
of  more  than  two  hundred  words,  which  either  in 
themselves  or  the  meaning  attached  to  them  are 
peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  he  collected  a  second 
class  of  expressions  which,  though  employed  by  later 
writers,  are  seldom  or  never  used  in  the  Pentateuch. 
So  great  an  impression  did  these  philological  essays 
of  Jahn  produce  on  the  mind  of  Rosenmiiller  that 
although  in  the  first  editions  of  his  commentary  he 


26  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

strenuously  argued  for  its  late  origin,  he  entirely 
changed  his  views,  and  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the 
third  edition  had  the  candour  to  acknowledge  his 
former  error."  ^  Much  importance  need  not  be 
attached  to  this  change  of  sides,  for  this  is  a  habit 
much  cultivated  by  German  critics — De  Wette  was 
changing  his  opinion  on  this  subject  with  every  new 
edition  of  his  work  ;  the  fact  is  recorded  to  prove 
that  in  the  judgment  of  competent  Hebrew  scholars 
these  peculiarities  do  exist.  Write  down  all  the 
anachronisms  on  one  side  of  the  page  and  all  the 
archaisms  on  the  other,  and  the  latter  will  be  the 
length  of  the  former  many  times  over. 

As  an  example  take  the  personal  pronoun  ^' hool' 
which  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch  indifferently  for  both 
masculine  and  feminine,  whilst  in  all  the  succeeding 
books  it  is  restricted  to  the  masculine,  the  feminine 
being  represented  by  "  Jicel^  a  form  which  occurs  but 
rarely  in  the  Pentateuch — twelve  times  to  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty-seven  of  the  other,  and  not  at  all 
in  Deuteronomy,  notwithstanding  the  confident  asser- 
tions of  the  lateness  of  its  composition.  Similarly 
the  noun  "  ndar!'  youth,  is  used  in  the  Pentateuch 
for  both  sexes,  standing  for  a  maid  as  well  as  a  lad, 
whereas  in  the  following  books  it  is  used  exclu- 
sively in  the  masculine  gender,  the  form  "  nci  arah  " 
being  employed  to  designate  the  female.  Ndar  in 
the  common  gender  is  employed  twenty-one  times 
in  the  Pentateuch,  whilst  ndarah,  in  the  feminine, 
but  once,  and  that  in  Deuteronomy.  That  the 
changes  here  are  from  a  less  to  a  more  developed 
stage  of  language  is  self-evident.  Take  our  first 
'  Jamieson,  Com.,  vol.  i.,  p.  xxv. 


THE   t^ENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  27 

instance,  hdo  and  hce.     In    Genesis  hod   occurs    fifty 
times,  hee  but  four  times  ;  in  Exodus  hod  ten  times, 
hee  not  once  ;  in  Leviticus  hod  sixty-six  times,  hee  but 
six  times  ;  in  Numbers  hod  twenty-six  times,  hee  but 
twice  ;  in  Deuteronomy  hdd  thirty-five  times,  hee  not 
at   all.     How  to  account   for  all   these  things?     To 
suppose  that  men   living   in  the  reign  of   Hezekiah 
or  Josiah,  or  after  the  return   from  the   Babylonish 
Captivity,   consciously   and    systematically   invented 
all   these    ancient   forms    of    speech    to    deceive   the 
unwary,  makes  too  preposterous   a  demand  on    our 
credulity.      The    traditional   view   in    its   core    may 
mount  above  reason  ;   the  critical  view  contains   un- 
reason.    That  Deuteronomy,  composed  as   is  loudly 
asserted  by  the  Higher  Criticism  in   the   era  of  the 
Exile,  should   use  the  pronoun  in   its  ancient  sense 
thirty  times,  and  not  once  in   its  more  modern  and 
advanced  form,  is  certainly  a  problem  hard  of  solution 
on  the  new  theory.     The  new  best  explains  the  few 
anachronisms;   the  old   accounts   best  for  the   more 
abundant  archaisms. 

Again,  reflect  a  moment  on  the  striking  anthropo- 
morphic expressions  contained  in  the  Pentateuch, 
a  feature  much  more  marked  than  in  the  succeeding 
books.  Poetry  goes  before  prose.  Every  child  is  a 
poet— he  speaks  in  poetry,  thinks  in  poetry,  feels  in 
poetry.  All  his  first  words  are  concrete,  metaphori- 
cal, figurative.  Concrete  terms  have  the  precedence  ; 
abstractions  come  later  on.  Hence  in  the  first  efforts 
of  thought  concrete  terms  are  applied  to  spiritual 
truths,  language  is  tinged  with  poetry.  In  the  dawn 
of  history  men  spoke  in  metaphors.  The  book  re- 
pletest  of  poetry  in  my  possession  is  an  etymological 


28  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

dictionary.  Every  word  traced  to  its  root  is  a  beauti- 
ful figure  of  speech,  a  perfect  poetic  gem.  Hence  the 
strong  anthropomorphisms  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
Hebrew  never  developed  like  the  Greek  into  an 
abstract  language.  In  this  it  resembled  the  Welsh — 
good  for  poetry,  bad  for  philosophy.  But  as  we 
come  down  the  centuries  the  anthropomorphisms 
grow  fewer  and  less  marked.  The  very  anthropo- 
morphisms of  the  Pentateuch  seem  to  indicate 
its  early  origin.  No  post-exilic  thinker  could  have 
invented  them  ;  the  very  attempt  would  have  done 
violence  to  all  his  religious  feelings  and  convictions. 
According  to  the  Higher  Criticism  the  Books  of 
Judges  and  Samuel  were  written  approximately 
about  David's  time.  That  also  is  the  date  ascribed 
to  the  documents  called  respectively  Elohistic  and 
Jehovistic,  the  foundation  documents  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. With  great  surprise,  therefore,  we  observe 
that  "documents  not  supposed  to  differ  in  the  date 
of  their  composition  differ  essentially  in  their  descrip- 
tion of  the  methods  of  the  Divine  revelation,  and 
in  their  modes  of  representing  religious  ideas  ;  and 
more,  that  the  antique  representations  of  the  Deity 
contained  in  the  Jehovistic  document  are  even 
regarded  later  in  date  than  the  representations  of 
a  higher  development  and  purity  in  the  earliest  part 
of  the  national  histories."* 

2.  The  traditional  theory,  moreover,  is  more 
accordant  with  the  historical  character  of  the  Old 
Testament.  By  throwing  the  composition  of  the 
earlier  books  on  to  the  times  of  the  Monarchy  and 
the  Exile,  from  seven  hundred  to  one  thousand 
^  Watson,  Genesis,  pp.  144,  146 


THE    PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  29 

years  after  the  events  had  transpired,  their  trust- 
worthiness as  veritable  histories  is,  I  will  not 
say,  utterly  destroyed,  but  imminently  imperilled. 
Even  allowing  that  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist,  about 
the  reign  of  David,  had  national  traditions  to  guide 
them  in  the  writing  of  their  separate  stories,  yet 
the  case  of  Mohammed  abundantly  proves  that 
traditional  lore  can  but  cautiously  be  trusted. 
Though  the  prophet  of  Arabia  lived  in  a  literary 
age  and  himself  wrote  the  Koran,  yet  within  two 
hundred  years  of  his  death  no  less  than  two 
thousand  fables  about  him  were  floating  in  the  air, 
with  hardly  a  particle  of  truth  in  any  of  them. 

That  tradition  is  unreliable  was  also  the  con- 
tention of  the  Higher  Critics  thirty  and  forty  years 
ago,  when  they  strove  so  valiantly  to  postpone  the 
composition  of  the  Gospels  by  one  hundred  years, 
to  yield  time  for  popular  tradition  to  crystallise 
into  myth.  Accordingly,  the  leading  German  ex- 
ponents of  the  Higher  Criticism,  having  the  courage 
of  their  system,  flatly  deny  the  historical  credibility 
of  the  Pentateuch.  Let  me  here  quote  a  few 
sentences  from  Wellhausen's  Prolegomena  to  the 
History  of  Israel.  "  We  attain  in  Genesis  to  no 
historical  knowledge  of  the  patriarchs,  but  only  of 
the  time  when  the  stories  about  them  rose  among 
the  Israelite  people ;  this  later  age  is  here  uncon- 
sciously projected,  in  its  inner  and  outward  features, 
into  hoar  antiquity,  and  is  reflected  there  in  a 
glorified  mirage."  "  Abraham  is  not  a  historical 
person  ;  he  might  with  more  likelihood  be  regarded 
as  a  free  creation  of  unconscious  art."  "  The 
patriarchs    are    the    ideal    prototypes    of    the    true 


30  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Israelite."  "  In  the  traits  of  personal  character 
ascribed  to  them  they  represent  substantially  the 
nature  and  aspirations  of  the  individual  Israelite." 
"  A  whole  series  of  stories  about  the  patriarchs  are 
cultus  myths."  Of  incidents  in  other  historical  books 
of  Scripture  he  avers  that  they  "  are  pious  make- 
ups," "  full  of  inherent  impossibilities,"  "  without  a 
word  of  truth  in  them."  ^ 

Take,  for  example,  the  elaborate  account  given 
in  Exodus  of  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  Congregation.  What  have  these  Higher  Critics 
to  say  to  it  ?  That  there  is  not  an  atom  of  historic 
truth  in  the  whole  account.  The  Tabernacle  never 
existed  except  in  the  imagination  of  the  priestly 
writer  after  the  Exile.  Of  the  institutions  of  the 
Passover  and  Pentecost  not  a  trace,  they  say,  is 
to  be  found  till  about  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  The 
Temple  of  Solomon  was  not  planned  after  the 
pattern  of  the  Tabernacle — the  Tabernacle  was  made 
after  the  pattern  of  the  Temple,  and  then  only  on 
paper  !  Between  the  wilderness  sojourn  and  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah  no  mention  is  made  of  them ; 
and  as  no  mention  is  made  of  them  they  did  not 
exist.  Lack  of  evidence  is  turned  into  abundance 
of  evidence. 

These  assertions  have  been  repeated  so  frequently 
and  loudly,  and  with  so  much  confidence,  that  on 
reading  Wellhausen's  History  of  Israel  on  its  first 
introduction  to  the  British  public,  by  Robertson 
Smith,  with  such  flourish  of  trumpets,  as  affording 
us  for  the  first  time  the  "  true  key "  to  the  Old 
Testament  history,  one  felt  staggered  and  amazed. 
'  Pages  320,  321,  325. 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  3 1 

Ingenuous  readers  took  for  granted  that  scholarly 
men  would  never  make  such  sweeping  statements, 
unless  they  had  perfectly  verified  their  ground.  The 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  however,  thought  he 
would  test  these  asseverations  by  confronting  them 
with  the  testimony  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  Kings, 
and  Chronicles.  With  what  result  ?  That  he  found 
an  account  of  six  celebrations  of  the  Passover,  casual 
references  to  several  others,  and  the  recognition  from 
age  to  age  of  the  hereditary  Aaronic  priesthood — 
all  of  which  were  not  invented,  according  to  the 
Higher  Critics,  till  the  epoch  of  the  Babylonish 
Captivity.  If  Bishop  Hervey  is  right — and  right  he 
undoubtedly  is — the  contention  that  Leviticus  and 
the  latter  half  of  Exodus  were  written  by  a  late 
priest  falls  with  a  crash  to  the  ground. 

Furthermore,  these  learned  men  have  maintained 
with  unwavering  assurance  that  the  idea  of  one 
God  and  one  Sanctuary  was  unknown  to  Israel  till 
about  the  same  time,  the  time  of  the  Captivity. 
Strange  how  they  crowd  all  the  grand  things  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  the  age  of  Israel's  declension 
and  decrepitude,  leaving  the  golden  age  of  Israel 
practically  emptied  of  all  literature  and  all  theology ! 
This  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  philosophy  of 
history,  to  say  the  least.  However,  the  above 
assertion  has  been  so  often  reiterated  that  many 
readers  have  been  more  or  less  imposed  upon,  never 
dreaming  that  able  men  would  hazard  such  a  state- 
ment without  a  sure  foundation.  "  One  God,  one 
Sanctuary,"  Wellhausen  tells  us,  was  an  axiom 
unknown  till  near  the  time  of  the  Captivity  ;  con- 
sequently, the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  the  elaborate 


32  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

ritual  were  unknown,  because  not  needed.  Con- 
sequently, again,  it  must  have  been  about  this  period 
that  those  books,  Dcuterononfiy  included,  were 
written.  Upon  this  thesis,  not  upon  any  recondite 
study  of  language,  Wellhausen  is  willing  to  stake 
his  whole  theory.  Upon  the  validity  of  this  assump- 
tion, the  critics,  German  and  English,  found  their 
dates  of  the  composition  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

Lately,  however,  a  Scottish  minister  ^  brought  the 
German  theory  and  the  Bible  history  face  to  face. 
In  the  sequel  the  theory  of  Wellhausen,  on  its  first 
careful  and  "  scientific  "  examination,  collapses.  In 
the  duel  between  the  German  and  the  Scotsman, 
the  latter  proves  himself  in  my  opinion  the  better 
and  truer  man.  So  far  the  Higher  Critics  in  their 
highminded  and  highhanded  way  profess  to  ignore 
the  book  ;  but,  all  the  same,  Dr.  Baxter  riddles  the 
Prolegomena  of  Wellhausen  with  as  much  severity 
and  banter  as  Wellhausen  was  supposed  to  have 
riddled  the  books  of  Moses.  If  Wellhausen  and 
his  English  admirers  held  that  the  Israelites  did 
not  observe  the  cardinal  truth  of  their  religion — 
that  God  is  one  and  that  there  is  none  other  besides 
Him,  that  they  often  and  shamefully  apostatised 
from  their  high  ideal,  that  they  worshipped  false 
idols  in  the  "  high  places  " — they  would  be  perfectly 
right.  From  the  start  the  truth  of  the  unity  of 
God  was  taught  them — it  was  not  a  new  discovery 
made  known  in  the  age  of  Josiah  for  the  first  time  ; 
but  a  truth  long  ago  revealed,  though  not  congenial 
to  their  idolatrous  hearts.     The  idea  of  one  supreme 

^  W.  L,  Baxter,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Sa?ictuary  and  Sacrifice. 


THE    PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  33 

central  sanctuary  was  not  foreign  to  them  ;  through- 
out their  entire  course  the  place  of  the  Tabernacle 
was  sacred  above  all  others.  Other  sanctuaries 
were  suffered,  so  long  as  in  those  places  they  wor- 
shipped the  one  true  God ;  but  as  these  other 
sanctuaries,  far  from  the  capital,  afforded  facilities 
to  the  idolatrous  people  to  offer  unto  the  gods  of 
the  heathen,  it  was  found  expedient  to  suppress 
them.  Josiah  ordered  the  demolition  of  all  the  "  high 
places,"  of  all  the  local  sanctuaries,  because  they 
fostered  idol-worship.  To  aver  that  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  truth  of  one  God  and  one  Sanctuary 
in  the  Hebrew  religion  and  history,  between  the 
wilderness  and  the  Captivity,  is  in  flat  contradiction 
to  the  only  books  which  afford  information  on  the 
subject 

The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  de- 
monstrate that  Israel  continually  rebelled,  went 
perversely  after  other  gods,  thus  bringing  into 
prominence  the  antagonism  between  the  Israelite 
nation  and  the  Israelite  religion.  Had  their  religion 
been  of  their  own  growth  or  manufacture,  the 
striking  contrast  between  them  and  it  could  not  have 
existed.  There  is  not  this  collision  between  other 
nations  and  their  respective  religions — the  nations 
and  their  religions  run  parallel,  without  disharmony. 
But  the  greatest  divergence  often  prevailed  between 
the  Israelites  and  their  religion.  "  Pass  over  the 
isles  of  Chittim  and  see,  and  send  unto  Kedar  and 
consider  diligently,  and  see  if  there  be  such  a 
thing,"  that  a  nation  and  its  religion  should  be  in 
continual  conflict.  "  Hath  a  nation,"  any  nation, 
"  changed  their  gods,  which   are  no  gods  ?  but  My 

3 


34 


PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 


people,  Israel,  have  changed  their  glory  for  that 
which  doth  not  profit,"  their  Jehovah  for  idols  (Jer. 
ii.  lO,  II ).  The  religion  and  the  Israelites  being  thus 
constantly  opposed  to  each  other,  the  religion,  it 
is  evident,  did  not  originate  in  their  hearts.  They 
did  not  create  it,  it  was  creating  them,  and  at  last 
succeeded  in  an  imperfect  way  to  make  them  a 
peculiar  possession  unto  God. 

These  questions  concerning  dates  and  authorship 
are  not  to  us  of  much  importance  in  themselves, 
for  the  books  are  what  they  are,  however  they 
came  to  be.  Yet  they  strike  their  roots  down  into 
problems  deeper  than  themselves,  into  the  natural 
or  supernatural  character  of  the  Old  Testament. 
We  maintain  that  Jehovah  created  the  nation  ;  the 
critics  that  the  nation  created  Jehovah.  We  hold 
that  God  interposed  by  miracle  and  prophecy  to 
redeem  Israel  ;  they  that  Israel  gradually  wrought 
out  its  own  redemption.  We  teach  salvation  by 
grace,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  the  supernatural  ;  they 
teach  salvation  by  works,  that  is,  on  naturalistic 
grounds,  thus  reducing  the  religion  of  Israel  into 
one  amongst  others  in  the  family  of  religions ;  and 
with  the  uniqueness  of  the  Hebrew  religion  passes 
away  the  Divine  pre-eminence  of  Christianity,  as 
indeed  Kuencn  is  candid  enough  to  avow. 

3.  The  advocates  of  the  new  theory,  whilst 
maintaining  that  it  removes  many  literary  diffi- 
culties, overlook  the  ominous  fact,  patent  to  most 
others,  that  it  creates  moral  difficulties  of  a  very 
grave  and  fundamental  character.  According  to 
them,  the  priests  of  the  era  of  the  Babylonish 
Captivity   wrote    Leviticus,    Numbers,   and    a   great 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  35 

part  of  Exodus,  whilst  a  great  unknown  prophet 
wrote  Deuteronomy  ;  and  they  all  conspired  together 
to  pass  them  off  as  the  legislation  of  Moses  ! 

Even   admitting  that  their  motive  was  pious,  the 
means  were  not  justified  by  the  end.    But  if  the  motive 
were  that  often  attributed  to  them  by  the  ablest  of 
the  Higher  Critics— namely,  to  secure  for  themselves 
the  emoluments  of  office  against  the  encroachments 
of  other   classes   of  officials — then    their   work    was 
doubly  atrocious.     To  say  the  least,  the  nation  must 
have  lapsed  into  a  state  of  inconceivable  obtuseness 
to  allow  to   pass  unchallenged  forgeries  so  flagrant. 
The    Israelites    have    always    been    a    quick-witted 
race,  and  on   other  occasions  have   exhibited   capa- 
bilities   of   keen    criticism.      Read    Jer.    xxvi.,    and 
note   the  sound  sense  of  "  the   elders   of  the  land," 
and  you  will  see  the  mental  calibre  of  the  generation 
which    is    said     to    have    been     imposed    upon    by 
designing   priests.      The   men   who  were  so  familiar 
with  the  history  of  religion  in   their  land,  as   these 
elders   showed   themselves    to    be,   and    who   dared 
resist    the    priests    by   passing   wholesome    strictures 
upon  their  murderous  intentions,  and  who  supported 
their  arguments  by  appeals  to  precedents,  were  not 
the  men  to  be  duped  into  the  belief  that  they  had 
always    possessed    the    rich    literary    and    religious 
heritage  contained   in    the    Pentateuch,   whereas    the 
whole  was   a  recent  invention.     They  were  not  the 
men  to  suffer  two  or  three  priests  to  palm  off  upon 
them   whole   books,    putting   a  yoke  of  ritual  upon 
their  necks,  involving  the  expenditure  of  thousands 
of  pounds  annually,  without  inquiring  into  their  cre- 
dentials.   The  supposition,  besides  reflecting  seriously 


36  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

on  the  moral  character  of  the  priests,  insults  the 
common  sense  of  the  nation — a  nation  which  for 
keenness  of  intelligence  has  always  been  in  the  van 
of  ancient  and  modern  civilisation. 

Read  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  judge  for 
yourselves.  One  perusal  of  it  from  beginning  to 
end,  without  note  or  comment,  will  do  more  to  carry 
conviction  into  the  mind  than  one  hundred  arguments 
deftly  handled  for  or  against.  It  is  one  of  the 
grandest  books  in  all  literature.  The  writer  of  it, 
be  he  who  he  may,  was  one  of  the  finest  thinkers, 
one  of  the  noblest  poets,  and  one  of  the  most 
devout  writers  the  world  has  ever  seen.  The  man 
w^ho  was  morally  and  intellectually  capable  of  writing 
Deuteronomy  was,  for  that  very  reason,  morally  and 
intellectually  incapable  of  trying  to  deceive  his  nation 
by  palming  it  off  as  the  work  of  another.  Morally 
incapable,  because  he  could  not  stoop  to  deception 
even  for  the  purpose  of  the  religious  improvement 
of  the  nation  ;  intellectually  incapable,  for  a  mind  of 
his  calibre  would  be  too  much  pervaded  by  genuine 
humility  to  pass  off  his  own  work  as  the  composition 
of  a  genius  of  the  first  magnitude  like  the  Hebrew 
legislator.  Only  a  man  who  believed  himself  the 
equal  of  Moses  would  dare  ascribe  his  ow^n  orations 
to  Moses  ;  but  such  intellectual  pride  would  be 
moral  suicide.  The  two  suppositions  are  wholly 
incompatible. 

The  proceedings  here  described  the  authors  of 
Lux  Mundi  adorn  with  the  euphonious  name  of 
"  dramatisation."  I  venture,  however,  to  say  that  the 
common  sense,  the  common  conscience,  of  mankind 
will  call   it   fabrication.     And   the  Bible  has  always, 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  37 

thank  God,  been  a  book  of  common  sense.  The 
final  court  always  is  the  common  sense  of  the 
common  people,  who  have  no  theories  to  uphold 
and  no  reputation  to  vindicate,  but  who  recognise 
the  truth  when  they  see  it.  Advocates  may  exhibit 
their  cleverness  and  their  learning ;  but  the  twelve 
men  of  common  sense,  without  cleverness  and  with- 
out learning,  sitting  silently  in  the  jury-box,  have 
the  decision  in  their  own  hands,  and  they  seldom  go 
wrong.  Twenty-seven  times  the  Book  of  Deutero- 
nomy declares  that  "  Moses  spake  unto  the  children 
of  Israel "  the  orations  which  it  reports  ;  it  pourtrays 
the  environments  of  the  lawgiver  and  of  the  nation 
with  accuracy  and  fulness  of  detail ;  it  affirms  that 
Moses,  before  his  death,  committed  it  to  the  elders 
of  Israel  to  be  carefully  kept  alongside  the  Ark.  If 
that  is  the  method  to  write  a  drama,  which  is  the 
way  to  write  history  ? 

A  drama  indeed !  I  can  understand  a  drama  like 
the  Book  of  Job,  which  bears  on  its  face  evidences 
of  its  character,  and  which  could  make  no  difference 
to  the  world,  whether  it  were  poetry  or  history.  It 
is  a  solitary  episode  without  connection  with  history 
in  the  past  or  the  future  ;  view  it  as  biography  or 
as  poetry,  it  all  comes  to  the  same  thing — it  does  not 
profess  to  influence  the  course  of  history.  The  same 
remarks  hold  true  of  Ecclesiastes.  But  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  demands  to  be  classed  in  a  different 
category.  It  presents  itself  to  us  in  vital  connection 
with  past  history  ;  and  we  know  that,  as  a  matter  of 
incontrovertible  fact,  it  has  more  powerfully  moulded 
the  subsequent  course  of  human  events  than  any 
book  ever  published, — fashioning  the  life  and  worship 


38  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

of  Israel,  which  at  last  culminated  in  the  Divine 
Incarnation  !  However  much  critics  may  endeavour 
to  varnish  the  proceedings  by  calling  them  a  drama, 
the  common  conscience  brushes  away  all  cobwebs 
of  scholastic  casuistry  and  calls  them  by  a  plainer 
and  a  blunter  name.  Read  the  book  :  can  you  in 
imagination  associate  trickery  of  any  kind,  from 
whatever  motive,  with  its  composition  or  promul- 
gation ?  Its  grand  morality,  its  lofty  poetry,  its 
spiritual  depth  and  richness  stamp  it  as  an  honest 
book,  the  work  of  an  honest  man — honest  to  the 
core,  honest  out  and  out,  through  and  through.  The 
ancient  prophets  were  no  Jesuits ;  Deuteronomy 
did  not,  could  not,  originate  in  Jesuitism.  Whatever 
difficulties  confront  the  traditional  view,  they  are 
but  literary  and  intellectual,  whereas  the  difficulties 
connected  with  the  modern  view  involve  the  gravest 
moral  considerations. 

4.  Observe  further  that  the  whole  history  of 
Israel  is  a  distinct  attestation  of  the  truth  that 
Israel's  laws  were  substantially  completed,  and  con- 
sequently the  Pentateuch  practically  finished,  in  the 
wilderness.  It  is  quite  possible,  and  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  Mosaic  authorship,  that  Ezra  or 
some  other  godly  and  inspired  scribe,  in  after-ages, 
codified  the  laws  ;  but  codification  is  not  legislation. 
What  we  contend  for  is  that  Moses  was  the  legislator. 
If  the  laws  of  Israel  were  not  then  made,  when 
were  they  made  ?  We  demand,  not  a  conjecture, 
but  a  "scientific"  answer.  The  judges  arc  never 
seen  enacting  laws,  only  governing  according  to 
them.  The  kings  are  never  described  as  framing 
laws,   only    as    obeying    them,    or,    more    frequently, 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  39 

breaking  them.     Who  then  made  the  laws,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  if  not  Moses  ?     A  most  singular  pheno- 
menon   this — a   nation,    a    state,    springing   up,   and 
no  account   after  its   constitution    in    the   wilderness 
of  any  attempt  by  king   or  elders,  by    monarch   or 
council,  to  formulate  laws  for  its  government ;  and 
yet   the  laws  are  there.      It   is   possible  to   write  a 
constitutional   history   of  England,   a    constitutional 
history  of  Rome,  a  constitutional  history  of  Greece, 
tracing  the  legislation   in   its   changes  and  additions 
from    century   to    century.       But   can   you    write   a 
constitutional  history  of   Israel   other   than    a  para- 
phrase of  that  contained  in  the   Old  Testament  ?    I 
do  not  inquire  if  you  can  attempt  a  reconstruction 
of   her    history,    to    evince    your    own    subtilty    of 
mind — Wellhausen    and    his     school    have    essayed 
that  ;  but  one  thing  is  clear,  that  the  old  theocratic 
historians    and    the    modern    critical    historians    are 
diametrically  opposed  in  their  method  of  presenting 
and  interpreting  the  story.      What  the   former  put 
first,    the     latter     place     last.       However,    the     Old 
Testament  itself  is  our  ultimate  authority  ;  and  where 
on  its  pages,  after  the  emergence  of  Israel  from  the 
wilderness,   do   you    discover    any    attempt    at    the 
repeal  of  old   laws  or  the  enactment  of  new  ones  ? 
This  absence   of  all  reference  to   legislation  in  sub- 
sequent   history    separates     Israel    from    all     other 
nations,  and  suffices,  almost  of  itself,  to  convince  me 
that  Israel  began    its    career    fully  equipped  with  a 
body  of  laws  sufficient  to  guide   it  in  the  course  of 
its  development.     The  nation  began  its  life  in  Canaan 
with  the  Pentateuch,   substantially    as    it  is  to-day 
as  its  most  precious  heirloom. 


40  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

5.  Pass  on  to  the  theological  bearings  of  the 
discussion.  The  modern  negative  view  strikes  at 
bottom  against  faith  in  the  supernatural.  Be  it  far 
from  me  to  sug-crest  that  individual  members  of  the 
Critical  School  have  lost  faith  in  the  supernatural 
— men  are  often  better  than  their  systems,  the  heart 
is  often  sounder  than  the  head.  I  am  only  arguing 
against  the  critical  scheme.  According  to  Dr.  Driver, 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  "  presupposed." 
But  the  question  is,  Can  the  presupposition  be 
converted  into  a  conclusion  ?  Personally  I  fail  to 
see  that  it  can. 

The  authors  of  Lux  Mtuidi^  sensitive  to  the  dis- 
harmony between  the  Higher  Criticism  and  the 
Christian  faith  as  heretofore  understood  by  the 
Christian  Church,  accepted  the  results  of  criticism 
hardly  a  century  old,  and  set  about  modifying,  if 
not  mutilating,  the  faith  which  has  weathered  the 
storms  of  two  millenniums.  The  fundamental 
question,  however,  is,  Did  Israel  make  the  religion, 
or  did  the  religion  make  Israel  ?  Our  answer  is, 
God  made  the  religion,  and  the  religion  made  Israel. 
The  religion  of  Israel  was  a  revealed  religion  ;  not 
merely  the  product  of  the  improved  consciousness 
of  the  nation,  but  the  fruit  of  the  Divine  love  and 
the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  purposes  of  grace. 
The  religious  consciousness  of  no  individual,  of  no 
nation,  improves  save  as  it  is  influenced  from  with- 
out and  from  above.  No  ;  it  was  not  the  expression 
of  the  national  heart  of  Israel,  but  the  utterance 
of  the  Divine  Heart ;  and,  therefore,  a  supernatural 
religion,  on  a  higher  level  of  spiritual  truth  than  the 
people  in  their  corporate  capacity  ever  attained  to. 


ITHE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  4 1 

A    parallel    is  presented    in    the    New    Testament 
Christianity  in  its  truth  and  purity  was  fully  revealed 
in  the  first  century,  the  permanent  standard  of  faith 
and    practice   being  then    set   up.      Ever   since,    the 
Christian  Church  has  been  striving   upwards  to   the 
attainment  of  the  standard, — with  many  serious  and 
protracted  relapses,  it  is  true  ;  yet  no  one  will  deny 
that  Christian  society  occupies  to-day  a  much  more 
elevated    platform    in    thought   and    conduct  than   it 
did  at  the  beginning  of  our  era.     Similarly  we  hold 
that    God    gave    Israel,   at    the    commencement   of 
their   marvellous    career,   a    body  of  truth,   of  laws, 
of  institutions,   to    be   unto    them    thenceforward  an 
ideal,  towards   the   realisation  of  which  it  was  their 
duty  in  all  the  subsequent  centuries  to  aspire.     Thus, 
according   to    the    traditional    view,   the    religion   of 
Israel   is  a  revelation,  carrying  with  it  faith   in   the 
supernatural — in    miracles,   prophecy,  and  grace,  for 
grace   is    the   one    thing   supernatural    for    the    sake 
of    which    every    other    supernatural    exists.       The 
English  section    of  the   Higher  Critics   also    believe 
the    Pentateuch    to    be    a    Divine    revelation ;    but 
how  to  harmonise  their  faith   in    it   as   a    revelation 
with  their  criticism   of  it  as  a  composition   is  what 
they  have   not   yet   succeeded    in    showing.      For   a 
while  the  two  may  live  together  ;    but  in  the  long- 
run    the    faith   will    overbear    the    criticism,   or    the 
criticism  will  wither  the  faith. 

6.  Finally,  the  traditional  view  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 
This  the  Higher  Critics  admit;  but  they  meet  it 
by  asserting  that  Christ  did  not  concern  Himself 
about  literature,  only  about  ethics  and  religion,  and 


4^  tRliMEVAL   REVELATION 

that  the  Apostles  "did  not  know."  When  in  this 
matter  we  appeal  to  Christ's  authority,  they  appeal 
from  His  authority  to  the  limitation  of  His  know- 
ledge. Basing  themselves  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
Kenosis,  the  authors  of  Liix  Mtmdi  teach  that, 
modify  the  phraseology  as  they  may  in  successive 
editions,  the  Lord  Jesus  shared  the  ignorance  of  His 
contemporaries  as  to  the  true  history  of  religion, 
of  which  He  Himself  was  the  centre  and  goal  ;  for 
here  the  history  of  the  books  is  largely,  if  not 
wholly,  the  history  of  the  religion. 

Do  these  opinions  sit  easily  on  the   mind  ?     For 
my   part    I    cannot   say   that   they   do.     It    may  be 
urged  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Himself  avows  ignorance 
of    the   date   of   the   Judgment    Day.      Yes  ;   once, 
and   only  once.   He   did   profess   ignorance  touching 
one  particular  point,  knowledge  of  which  would  not 
assist   the    moral   development   of  the   human    race. 
But   from   one    instance    concerning   a    date    in    the 
far-off  future  are  you  prepared  to  draw  a  sweeping 
generalisation  of  universal  ignorance,  reducing  Him, 
outside   the   sphere   of  ethics,   to   the   level    of   His 
contemporaries  ?      Is    it    not    more    consonant   with 
all  that  is  sacred  and  reverend  in  the  Bible  to  con- 
sider that  confession  of  nescience  on  a  single  point 
as  the  exception  which  confirms  the  rule  ?     Every- 
where else  He  quietly  asserts  His  perfect  knowledge 
of  what  is  in   God,  of  what  is   in   man,   of  what   is 
in   the   Bible  ;  not  in   that  blatant,  egotistic  manner 
which  stamps  a  man  a  vulgar  pedant,  but  with  that 
calm    assurance   and    serene    restraint  which   always 
carry  conviction.     "  That  which  we  know  we  speak  ; 
that   which    we   have    seen    we   testify."      "  For    He 


tllE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  43 

whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God  ; 
for  not  by  measure  did  God  give  unto  Him  the 
Spirit."  "  He  knew  them  all,  and  there  was  no 
need  that  any  should  testify  to  Him  of  man,  for 
He  knew  what  was  in  man." 

Read  the  four  Gospels,  and  the  impression  the 
Lord  Jesus  makes  on  the  mind  is  that  of  universal, 
infallible  knowledge  ;  all  along  we  move  in  a  circle 
of  resplendent  light,  without  the  shade  of  a  shadow. 
Not  a  single  instance  of  tripping  or  mental  un- 
certainty can  be  cited.  That  being  the  case,  his 
acknowledgment  of  limitation  concerning  a  future 
date,  tJie  concealment  of  which  helps  on  the  morality  of 
the  zvorld^  should  be  viewed,  not  as  a  proof  of  general 
ignorance,  but  of  universal  knowledge.  Suppose 
to-day  a  man  should  say, — I  have  studied  astronomy 
and  geology,  jurisprudence  and  theology  ;  I  have 
gone  the  round  of  the  circle  of  the  sciences,  with  one 
exception — of  the  science  of  electricity  I  plead  ignor- 
ance. Would  you  take  his  frank  avowal  of  unac- 
quaintance  with  one  branch  an  evidence  of  his  general 
lack  of  knowledge?  Rather  would  it  not  be  taken 
as  a  proof  of  universal  information  ?  I  am  anxious 
to  press  this  home  upon  the  attention  of  the  younger 
brethren,  for  their  adoption  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
has,  I  fear,  already  told  upon  their  estimation  of  the 
Person  of  Christ.  The  force  of  the  concurrence  of 
the  Saviour  in  the  traditional  view  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  neutralised  by  the  authors  of  Lux  Mundi 
by  pleading  His  nescience.  Bishop  Ellicott,  however, 
whose  scholarship  and  sound  judgment  as  an  exegete 
are  known  in  all  the  Churches,  in  his  book  Christies 
Comprobator^  maintains  with  much  gravity  and  earnest- 


44  rRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

ncss  that  the  Saviour's  opinion  on  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  decisive,  and  ought  to  be 
final. 

The  infalHble  knowledge,  not  the  infinite  know- 
ledge, of  the  Lord  Jesus  on  these  and  other  subjects 
is  founded  on  three  considerations.  First,  the  sin- 
lessncss  of  His  nature.  From  our  sinful,  and  conse- 
quently darkened  nature,  it  is  not  safe  to  argue  to 
His  sinless,  and  therefore  illumined  nature.  Sinless- 
ness  carries  with  it  illumination  ;  impeccability  in  the 
sphere  of  ethics  implies  infallibility  in  the  domain  of 
knowledge.  Second,  in  His  baptism  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  given  not  by  measure  unto  Him.  To  imagine 
that  He  was  ignorant  of  the  true  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  religion  and  writings,  which  concerned 
Himself  more  than  the  Israelites  themselves,  is  to 
kill  faith,  however  unintentionally,  in  the  roots. 
Third,  the  union  of  the  two  natures  and  their  intimate 
relation  the  one  to  the  other.  In  former  years  the 
tendency  of  theology  was  to  lay  stress  on  the  sup- 
posed fact  that  the  Divine  in  Christ  elevated  and 
ennobled  the  human  ;  the  tendency  now  is  to  the 
other  extreme,  that  in  the  Incarnation  the  human 
depressed  the  Divine — a  proof  of  the  Unitarian  or 
Rationalistic  trend  of  modern  thought.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Kenosis  is  pushed  to  such  an  extreme  as  to 
foster  error. 

Bishop  EUicott  writes  :  "  From  the  closeness  of  the 
conjunction  [between  the  two  natures],  it  is  indis- 
putable that  both  the  body  and  soul  of  Christ 
did  receive,  by  influence  of  Deity  wherewith  they 
were  united,  qualities  and  powers  above  nature." 
"  Surely,"  says  the  judicious  Hooker,  "  as  the  sword 


THE   PENTATEUCH   AND   CRITICISM  45 

which  is  made  fiery  doth  not  only  cut  by  reason 
of  the  sharpness  which  it  simply  hath,  but  also 
burn  by  means  of  that  heat  which  it  hath  from  the 
fire,  so  there  is  no  doubt  but  the  Deity  of  Christ 
hath  enabled  that  nature  which  it  took  of  man  to 
do  more  than  man  in  this  world  hath  power  to 
comprehend."  ^  And  the  conclusion  of  Hooker  seems 
inevitable,  that  the  human  soul  of  Christ  must  have 
had  an  ever-present  illumination,  and,  to  use  his 
own  words,  "  must  of  necessity  be  endued  with 
knowledge  so  far  forth  universal,  though  not  that 
peculiar  to  Deity  itself"  The  impression  a  frequent 
perusal  of  His  life  has  made  upon  me  is  the  same 
as  that  He  made  on  St.  Peter—"  Lord,  Thou  knowest 
all  things."  Instead  of  seizing  on  one  verse  wherein 
He  confesses  ignorance  of  one  future  event,  the  one 
thing  which  He  would  not,  and  not  which  He 
could  not,  know,— instead  of  jumping  at  that  one 
verse  and  waving  it  in  triumph  in  proof  of  the 
Saviour's  nescience,  it  is  the  one  statement  in  the 
Gospel  which,  more  than  anything  else,  tries  my 
faith.  That  He  knew  all  things  I  can  understand 
and  believe ;  that  He  was  ignorant  of  one  thing 
it  is  which  staggers  my  intellect  and  strains  my 
faith.  Blessed  Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things  ;  Thou 
knowest  how  hard  it  is  for  one  of  Thy  followers, 
at  least,  to  believe  that  Thou  wert  ignorant  of  one 
single  thing.  In  the  blaze  of  light  encircling  Thy 
brow,  I  fail  to  discover  one  spot  of  darkness,  and, 
didst  Thou  Thyself  not  point  it  out,  mankind  would 
have  never  detected  it ! 

1  Eccl.  Polity,  Book  Y.  54. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION 

IN  this  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  Moses  gives  in 
a  pictorial,  poetic  way  his  views  of  the  creation 
of  the  world.  This  was  necessary  as  a  legitimate 
foundation  for  his  religious  teaching.  Without 
sound  views  of  God  as  Creator,  and  of  nature  as 
creation,  the  construction  of  a  correct  theology  is 
not  possible.  Divine  revelation  from  beginning  to 
end  is  founded  on  the  truths  here  propounded. 
Wrong  views  of  this  fundamental  doctrine  imply 
distorted  views  concerning  all  other  doctrines. 
Mosaic  theology,  therefore,  properly  begins  with 
the  creation  of  the  world.  Cut  away  this  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  and  the  rest  of  the  Bible  will 
be  but  a  splendid  edifice  without  a  foundation,  a 
gorgeous  castle  hanging  in  the  air.  And  how 
grandly  Moses  begins  !  From  the  start  the  music 
beats  harmonious,  rich,  and  full  :  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 

Cuvier,  the  celebrated  naturalist,  writes  that  "a 
sublimer  passage  than  this  from  the  first  word  to 
the  last  never  can  nor  will  come  from  a  human  pen." 
J.  G.  Staib,  an  eminent  German  scholar  and  theo- 
logian, asks :  "  Whence  do  these  chapters  come  ? 
I  do  not  know.     There  they  stand,  and  will  ever  con- 

47 


48  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

tinuc  to  stand,  however  much  it  has  been  sought 
to  explain  them  away ;  and  there,  doubtless,  they 
will  remain  until  the  end  of  the  world,  until  the 
conclusion  of  God's  kingdom  on  earth  joins  hands 
with  the  beginning,  and  the  light  of  the  beginning 
can  again  be  recognised  in  the  light  of  the  end, 
and  the  light  of  the  end  in  the  light  of  the  beginning, 
that  God  may  still  be  all  in  all."  From  a  literary 
point  of  view,  therefore,  Moses  at  once  struck  the 
highest  keynote.  He  is  characterised  by  dignity  of 
movement  and  sublimity  of  conception,  which  at 
once  place  him  in  the  forefront  of  literary  artists. 
Observe  the  fulness  of  his  matter,  the  sonorousness 
of  his  cadences,  the  archaic  dignity  of  his  language, 
here  and  throughout  the  Pentateuch.  Whoever 
composed  these  five  books,  without  controversy  he 
has  a  grandeur  about  him  which  strikes  his  readers 
dumb  with  amazement.  View  him  simply  as  a 
writer,  from  the  standpoint  of  literature,  and  where 
among  his  contemporaries,  or  indeed  among  his 
successors  for  centuries  after,  will  you  find  his 
compeer  ? 

I.  "  In  the  beginning,  God  !  "  True  to  unsophisti- 
cated human  nature,  and  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  whole  spirit  of  the  Bible,  Moses  does  not 
attempt  to  prove  the  existence  of  God,  A  proof 
that  God  existed  was  redundant — in  Moses'  time 
mankind  admitted  too  many  gods.  Instead  of 
beginning  with  nature,  and  climbing  up  laboriously 
on  a  ladder  constructed  by  the  cunning  hands  of 
logic  to  nature's  God,  the  writer  boldly  begins  at 
the  other  end — at  the  top,  with  God  ;  and  from 
this  infinite  height  with  swift  wing  descends  to  God's 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      49 

works.  Instead  of  the  creation  demonstrating  God, 
God  explains  the  creation.  The  Being  of  God  is 
a  primary  truth,  and  in  Holy  Writ  is  everywhere 
taken  for  granted.  He  holds  the  same  place  in  the 
moral  world  that  axioms  do  in  mathematics — He 
is  self-evident,  fundamental,  necessary,  not  supported 
by  but  supporting  every  other  truth. 

Moses  writes  no  explanatory  introduction,  offers 
no  humble  apology.  But  having  been  on  the 
mount  with  God,  like  an  eagle  he  swoops  down 
upon  us  majestically.  From  the  loftiest  altitude, 
from  the  sublimest  verity,  he  comes  down  with 
transfigured  countenance,  dazzling  his  readers  with 
the  white  light  of  eternal  truth  :  "In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  How 
much  grander  is  that,  and  more  impressive,  than 
if  he  had  carefully  welded  together  small  syllogisms 
to  enable  us  painfully  to  reach  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  a  God.  Moses'  way  is  the  Divine  way. 
Only  small,  carping,  peddling  minds  it  is  that 
demand  a  proof.  If  God  condescend  to  demonstrate 
to  us  His  existence,  it  will  be,  not  by  logic,  but 
by  revelation. 

The  fact  is — God  cannot  be  proved  ;  if  He  could. 
He  would  not  be  God.  However  large  the  universe, 
still  it  is  measurable,  finite  ;  and  from  finite  premises 
we  cannot  draw  infinite  conclusions.  Belief  in  the 
existence  of  a  Divine  Being  is  independent  of 
logic,  has  prevailed  before  the  laws  of  logic  were 
formulated,  and  is  invincible  to-day  in  minds 
innocent  of  all  school  learning.  It  is  a  truth,  not 
of  reasoning,  but  of  reason  ;  not  of  logic,  but  of 
mind.     "  A   God  who   can   be   proved,"  says  Ulrici, 

4 


50  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

"  is  no  God  ;  for  the  ground  of  proof  is  necessarily 
above  the  thing  proved  by  it."  In  other  words, 
to  demonstrate  by  argument  that  God  exists  is 
an  endeavour  to  ground  Him  on  another  truth, 
larger  and  stronger  and  more  fundamental  than 
Himself.  But  where  is  the  truth  that  exists  before 
God,  is  deeper  and  larger  than  He,  independent  of 
Him,  but  He  dependent  on  it  ?  There  is  no  such 
truth.  God  is  the  foundation  truth,  and  before, 
beneath,  or  above  Him  there  is  none  other.  God 
exists  in  absolute  independence,  having  the  ground 
of  His  existence,  not  without,  but  within  Himself 
alone.  He  is  the  bottom  truth,  extending  like  solid 
granite  underneath  the  whole  continent  of  matter 
and  mind ;  consequently  all  other  truth  must  be 
built  on  Him,  not  He  on  it.  His  existence  is  not 
an  inference  from  preceding  premises,  for  the 
manifest  reason  that  there  are  no  premises.  God 
is  premise  and  conclusion,  cause  and  effect,  all  in 
one,  and  accordingly  transcends  all  laws  of  human 
argumentation. 

From  this  it  follows  that  faith  in  God  is  universal, 
springing  out  of  the  very  constitution  of  human 
nature,  apart  from  and  prior  to  all  culture.  Reason 
cannot  deny  God  without  incurring  the  penalty  of 
self-stultification.  Faith  in  God  is  an  essential 
endowment  of  human  reason.  Hence,  wherever 
man  is,  religion  is.  "  If  you  travel  through  the 
world,"  says  Plutarch,  "  well  may  you  find  cities 
without  walls,  without  literature,  without  kings,  not 
peopled  or  inhabited,  moneyless  and  such  as  desire 
no  coin,  which  know  not  what  theatres  or  public 
halls  of  bodily  exercise  mean  ;  but  never  was  there, 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      5  I 

nor  ever  shall  be,  any  one  city  seen,  without  temple, 
church,  or  chapel,  without  some  god  or  other, 
which  useth  no  prayers  nor  oaths,  no  prophecies 
and  divination,  no  sacrifice  either  to  obtain  good 
blessings  or  to  avert  heavy  curses  and  calamities — 
nay,  methinks  a  man  should  sooner  find  a  city  in 
the  air  without  any  plot  of  ground  whereon  it  is 
seated,  than  any  commonwealth  altogether  void  of 
religion  and  the  opinion  of  the  gods  that  it  should 
either  be  first  established,  or  afterwards  preserved  and 
maintained  in  that  estate."  So  wrote  the  old  Roman 
two  thousand  years  ago,  and  his  testimony  still 
remains  unshaken.  Belief  in  God  is  native  to  the 
heart  of  man.  This  is  what  Tertullian  meant  when 
he  exclaimed,  "  O  human  soul,  who  art  by  nature 
Christian  ! " 

But  though  this  truth  is  inwrought  in  the  very 
fabric  of  the  soul,  and  therefore  cannot  and  needs 
not  be  logically  proved,  yet  it  is  capable  of  justifi- 
cation, and  often  needs  illustration.  "  For  that 
which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them, 
for  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them.  For  the  invisible 
things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  which 
are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead" 
(Rom.  i.  19,  20).  Look  at  a  sheet  of  paper.  Ap- 
parently no  marks,  except  those  made  with  pen 
and  ink,  are  decipherable  upon  it.  But  if  you  hold 
it  up  against  the  light,  you  will  see  other  writing, 
not  in  ink,  but  in  water.  The  manufacturer  has 
inscribed  in  the  foolscap  his  own  name.  Thus  God 
seems  to  have  engraved  on  the  human  soul  in 
water-marks,  nay,  in  blood-marks.  His  own  mysterious 


52  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

name  ;  the  strange  hieroglyphs  can  never  be  erased. 
The  idea  of  God  is  intertwined  with  the  innermost 
fibres  of  our  make. 

Moses  did  right  when  he  began  at  the  beginning, 
when  he  struck  with  distinctness  the  chord  which 
has  never  been  lost  in  human  nature,  when  he 
clearly  enunciated  this  fundamental  truth,  and  held 
it  up  against  the  sky  for  all  men  to  see  :  "  In  the 
beginning,  God  !  "  The  statement  instantly  wakes 
in  the  deepest  recesses  of  the  spirit  a  distinct  echo  ; 
we  feel  that  it  is,  must  be,  true.  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  The 
innate  belief  of  the  soul  is  illuminated,  its  outlines 
are  more  distinctly  sketched,  by  looking  at  them 
in  the  light  of  nature.  "  I  asked  the  earth  concerning 
God,"  says  Augustine  ;  "  it  answered,  I  am  not  He  ; 
and  all  that  therein  is  made  the  same  acknowledg- 
ment. I  asked  the  sea  and  the  depths,  and  all 
that  move  and  live  therein  ;  and  they  answered, 
We  are  not  thy  God — seek  higher.  I  asked  the 
winds ;  but  the  air  with  all  its  inhabitants  answered, 
I  am  not  thy  God.  I  asked  the  heavens,  the 
sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars  ;  and  they  answered, 
Neither  are  we  the  God  whom  thou  seekest.  And 
I  said  to  all  things  that  surround  me,  Ye  have 
told  me  concerning  my  God  that  ye  are  not  He ; 
speak  then  to  me  of  Him.  And  they  all  cried 
with  loud  voices,  He  made  us."  ^  They  did  not 
give  to  Augustine  the  idea  of  God — that  he  possessed 
already,  else  he  would  not  have  gone  out  in  search 
of  Him  and  catechised  Nature  concerning  Him. 
But  though  incapable  of  imparting,  they  yet  served 
'  Confessions,  x.  6. 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      53 

to    illumine,    the    idea,  justifying   to   him    the   belief 
which  already  possessed  his  soul. 

II.  The  heavens  and  the  earth  were  created,  but 
God  is  uncreated.  That,  it  would  seem,  is  the  first 
contrast  in  the  author's  mind.  A  question  which 
every  thoughtful  man  involuntarily  asks  is,  How 
came  God  to  be  ?  Moses'  answer  is.  He  did  not 
come  to  be,  He  was,  or,  rather,  He  is.  Here  for 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  religious  thought  we 
come  across  the  idea  of  a  Being  uncaused,  uncreated, 
a  Being  who  simply  and  necessarily  is.  This  idea 
is  of  Mosaic  origin,  by  which  is  meant  that  it  is 
first  to  be  met  with  in  the  books  of  Moses,  which- 
ever way  he  obtained  it,  whether  by  philosophic 
reflection,  direct  revelation,  or  mediately  by  tradi- 
tion from  his  patriarchal  ancestors.  It  is  further 
developed  in  the  new  name  Jehovah,  which  in 
Exodus  God  appropriates  to  Himself.  This  differen- 
tiates the  theology  of  Moses  from  all  heathen 
theologies.  In  these  latter  the  creators  are  first 
created — that  is,  the  gods  of  heathenism  are  creatures 
more  than  creators,  they  never  attain  the  idea  of 
absolute  divinity.  Behind  them  and  before  them 
was  some  dark  power  or  force,  called  Fate  or 
Destiny  or  something  equivalent,  originating  them 
and  dominating  over  them.  The  heathen  mind 
discussed  the  origin  of  the  Godhead  more  than  the 
origin  of  matter — to  them  matter  had  no  origin,  but 
God  had.  According  to  Hindoo  theology,  Brahma, 
the  fruitful  parent  of  all  creatures,  was  not  self- 
existent — he  had  emerged  from  an  egg.  The 
Egyptian  mythology,  amid  which  Moses  was  brought 
up,  had  an  elaborate  astronomical  system  to  illustrate 


54  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

how  the  gods  proceeded  from  one  another,  and  all 
from  Osiris.  In  the  Semitic  cosmogonies  outside 
Israel,  the  idea  of  a  Creator  dimly  glimmers,  but  it 
never  stands  out  bold  and  distinct,  never  extricates 
itself  wholly  from  the  forces  of  nature.  Or,  if  among 
the  common  ancestors  of  the  Semitic  nations,  it  did 
once  so  exist,  it  had  become  lost  like  a  river  in 
the  sands  of  the  desert,  till  in  the  mud  no  one 
could  tell  which  was  river  and  which  sand.  In  the 
Assyrian  cosmogony,  the  reflection  of  this  idea 
seems  to  be  more  of  an  after-glow  than  the  morning 
dawn.  The  idea  of  a  God  self-existent,  uncreated, 
finds  no  home  in  it ;  the  gods  of  Nineveh  and 
Babylon  were  creatures,  having  a  beginning,  de- 
pendent on  others  for  their  existence. 

Neither  in  the  Greek  religion,  poetry,  or  philo- 
sophy is  the  idea  anywhere  to  be  found  of  a  God 
uncaused,  uncreated,  self-existent,  without  beginning 
or  end.  "  The  ancient  Greek  gods  were  not 
creators,  were  all  created,  had  a  beginning,  were 
to  have  an  end,  stood  within  the  order  of  nature, 
lived  under  the  shadow  of  fate.  Hesiod  tells  us 
that  it  was  from  the  union  of  the  '  broad-bosomed 
earth '  and  the  '  starry  ouranos '  that  the  gods 
sprang.  One  of  the  Homeric  hymns  makes  earth 
the  spouse  of  the  starlit  heaven,  the  mother  of  gods. 
Pindar  made  gods  and  men  of  one  race,  sons  of 
one  mother.  This  ancient  belief  lived  long  and 
died  slowly."  ^  This  is  illustrated  by  that  precocious 
child  Epicurus  inquisitively  pressing  the  question. 
Who  made  Chaos?  Not  who  made  the  gods,  but 
who  made  Chaos,  the  maker  of  the  gods  ?  From  the 
*  Fairbairn,  C/Zy  q/  God,  p.  49. 


THE   CREATOR   AND   THE   CREATION  55 

Standpoint  of  the  Greek  religion   no  embarrassment 
was   felt    in    answering    who    made    the   gods;    the 
difficulty  was  who  made  the  maker  of  the  gods,  who 
made  Chaos?     No  Greek  sage  could  answer.     Living 
many   centuries    after   Moses,  these  brilliant,  daring 
thinkers  of  Greece,  in  their  conception  of  the  Deity, 
lag    immeasurably    behind    the    Hebrew    legislator. 
Whereas  they  formulated    perplexing    and  unprofit- 
able   questions    concerning    the    pedigrees     of    the 
gods,  Moses,  brushing  all  these  cobwebs  aside,  steps 
into  the  sunlight,  and   in  tones    unmistakable  says  : 
"  In   the  beginning  God — God   uncaused,  uncreated, 
underived,  God  who  is  the  Eternal,  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth."     In  all  heathen   theologies 
matter  is   self-existent,  and  the  gods  are  dependent, 
created ;  in  the  Mosaic  theology  all  this  is  reversed 
— God  is  self-existent,  matter  created  and  dependent. 
Who  made  Chaos?      Put  the  question   to    Plato, 
the  prince  of  uninspired  thinkers,  and  he  can  offer 
no  satisfactory  solution.      Address   the   question   to 
Moses,  and  his  answer  is  prompt,  decisive,  unfalter- 
ing :    "  In    the   beginning  God  created   the   heavens 
and  the  earth.     And  the  earth  was  without  form  and 
void."     He  speaks  from  beside  God,  as  an  organon 
of  God,    as   one   having    authority,   and  not  as  the 
rhetoricians   and   philosophers,  nor  even  as    modern 
scientists.      How   to  account  for   this  difference   be- 
tween Moses  and  Plato  ?     How  came  Moses  to  think 
these  high  thoughts,  to  see  clearly  where  the  ablest 
thinkers   of  antiquity  perceived    nothing   but    dense 
darkness  ?      How   came  he   to   solve   with   apparent 
ease  problems   which  they   had    not    even    the    skill 
to   propound  ?      To    me   there   is    but   one    answer 


6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 


which  covers  the  whole  ground — that  God  was  speak- 
ing through  His  servant  Moses  or  through  his  an- 
cestors who  transmitted  to  the  after-time  this  high 
conception  of  God.  Deny  Divine  inspiration  to 
Moses,  and  he  becomes  forthwith  one  of  the  greatest 
enigmas  of  history.  Refuse  him  Divine  revelation, 
and  how  to  account  for  the  first  verse  of  Genesis? 
how  to  account  for  the  marvellous  solution  of  the 
problem  of  the  origin  of  all  things — a  problem  so 
complicated  that  all  the  learning  of  Greece  had  not 
the  skill  to  state  it  properly,  much  less  to  solve 
it  rightly?  Fichte  says  that  this  first  verse  contains 
more  true  wisdom  than  all  the  folios  of  ancient 
philosophy.  Andrew  Fuller  declares  that  a  child 
can  learn  in  five  minutes  in  this  verse  more  than 
all  the  ancient  sages  ever  knew.  How  to  account 
for  it?     The  supernatural  cannot  be  suppressed. 

ni.  A  devout  study  of  the  chapter  further  dis- 
covers in  it  that  God  is  not  a  physical  unity,  but 
a  mysterious  Personality,  both  one  and  many.  The 
notion  of  unity  obviously  predominates,  for  this  is 
the  impression  the  perusal  of  it  has  always  left 
on  men's  minds.  It  is  the  one  fountain  whence  all 
the  monotheistic  religions  flow.  The  story  of  the 
Creation  deals  a  fatal  blow  to  Polytheism.  And, 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  one  object  doubtless  was 
to  undermine  the  colossal  idolatry  which  was  every- 
where weakening  the  religious  affinities  of  the  race 
and  sapping  the  ethical  foundations  of  society.  But 
alongside  of  this  dogma  of  the  strict  arithmetic.il 
Unity  of  God  are  discernible  vague  hints  of  a 
Plurality — not  plurality  of  persons  yet,  nor  of  hypos- 
tases, but  a  veritable  plurality  nevertheless,  the  initial 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      57 

Stage  in  the  preparation  of  the  mind  for  the  fully 
developed  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  contained  in  the 
New  Testament. 

These  fugitive  fore-gleams  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity    are    thickly    scattered    through    the    story. 
The  first  is  seen  in  the  first  verse,  "  In  the  beginning 
God  [Elohim,   plural]   created  the  heavens    and    the 
earth,"    where  a   plural    nominative    is   joined    to    a 
singular    verb.       How     to    explain    this    unfamiliar 
syntactical  construction?     Futile  is  the  answer  that 
it  is   the  usage  of  language;  we  want  to  know  the 
reason  for  the  usage.     Moses,  who  made  himself  bold 
as    seeing    Him    who    is    invisible,    possessed    in    his 
thinking   originality    and    independence   enough    to 
depart  from  the  common  usages  of  speech,  if  adher- 
ence   thereto    compromised    the    truth.     The    other 
answer,  that  the   plural   form    is  a  relic  of  primeval 
Polytheism,  may  be  right  or  wrong  ;  but  that  Moses 
introduced    a    polytheistic     thought     into    the    first 
sentence  in  his  book,  written  to  counteract  idolatry, 
cannot  be  entertained.     The  unexpected  conjunction, 
in  a  book  intended  to  teach  Monotheism,  of  a  plural 
noun    with    a   singular   verb    obscurely    intimates    a 
Plurality   within    the    Unity,    the   kind    of  plurality, 
whether  of  powers  or  of  persons,  being  left  to  future 
disclosures. 

Again,  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  is  unexpectedly 
introduced  another  mysterious  Plural:  "And  God 
said,  Let  Us  make  man  in  OUR  image,  after  OUR 
likeness."  Who  are  included  in  this  wonderful 
"Us"?  The  view  frequendy  adopted  that  God 
and  the  angels  are  intended— the  view  advocated 
by  Dclitzsch — is  discounted  by  three  considerations. 


58  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

First,  no  mention  is  yet  made  of  the  angels  ;  second, 
the  angels  are  not  said  to  have  co-operated  with  God 
in  the  formation  of  man  ;  third,  man  is  not  said 
to  have  been  created  in  the  image  of  the  angels,  but 
in  the  image  of  God.  Indeed,  the  question  might 
legitimately  be  raised  whether  the  angels,  who  are 
mere  units,  without  family  bonds,  were  formed  in  the 
image  of  the  Triune  One.  Better  and  profounder 
is  the  contention  of  that  learned  Jew  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  Moses  Maimonides,  that  by  the  "  Us "  here 
are  to  be  understood  God  on  the  one  hand  and 
Nature  on  the  other.  In  the  production  of  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  the  fishes 
of  the  sea,  God  did  not  exercise  His  direct  creative 
fiat,  saying,  "  Let  the  creatures  be,"  and  the  creatures 
were.  But  "  God  said.  Let  the  waters  bring  forth 
abundantly  the  moving  creature  that  hath  life." 
"  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living 
creature  after  his  kind."  God  does  not  produce  them 
independently  of  Nature,  nor  Nature  independently 
of  God,  but  God  works  in  and  through  Nature. 
Similarly,  in  the  creation  of  man,  God  takes  Nature 
into  partnership.  As  in  the  production  of  the  earlier 
animals  He  addressed  Nature,  so  in  the  creation  of 
man  He  continues  to  speak  to  Nature,  saying,  "  Let 
us,  Mc  and  thee,  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness  ;  thou  shalt  weave  his  body  after  the  pattern 
already  stamped  on  the  animal  world,  and  I  will 
make  his  soul,  his  spirit,  in  the  likeness  of  My  own 
being  and  attributes.  I  will  meet  with  thee  there, 
in  man."  That,  paraphrased  and  expanded,  is  the 
profound  view  of  the  Jewish  commentator — a  view 
which  in  its  vast  scope  makes  ample  room  for  the 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      59 

modern  science  of  evolution  ;  and  were  I  constrained 
to  choose  between  the  views  of  these  two  learned 
Jews — one  among  the  most  learned  men  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  other  among  the  most  learned  of 
the  present  century — I  would  not  hesitate  in  showing 
my  preference  for  the  theory  of  Maimonides,  as  more 
consonant  with  true  exegesis. 

But  a  third  view  is  possible — that  here  we  should 
understand  a  Plural  of  Majesty.  Much,  of  course, 
depends  upon  the  signification  we  attach  to  the  term. 
That  God  should  condescend  to  observe  the  etiquette 
of  Oriental  courts,  or  speak  in  the  self-magnifying 
style  of  earthly  potentates,  is  inconceivable.  God  is 
never  afraid  of  saying  "  I " ;  that  is  His  usual  style 
throughout  the  Old  Testament.  But  if  we  under- 
stand by  it  a  real  plural,  based  on  fact  and  not  on 
self-aggrandisement,  to  the  adoption  of  this  term  into 
the  already  large  household  of  theology  there  can  be 
no  objection.  Manifestly  the  meaning  is  that  God 
is  not  a  bare,  bald,  physical.  Almighty  Atom,  but  an 
Ethical  Unity,  and  an  ethical  unity  implies  ethical 
relations,  for  without  relations  ethics  are  impossible. 
Man  is  not  yet  created  ;  where  then  are  the  ethical 
relations?  Obviously  in  the  interior  essence  of  the 
Being  who  speaks.  In  the  Mosaic  conception,  God 
is  not  a  physical  but  a  Social  Unit,  for  He  speaks  to 
others ;  He  is  in  social  relations  within  Himself  from 
eternity,  and  is  therefore  capable  of  entering  into 
social  relations  external  to  Himself  in  time.  That 
Moses  or  his  early  readers  indulged  in  this  meta- 
physical strain  of  reasoning  is  not  for  a  moment 
intended ;  but  unmistakably  the  language  conveys 
the  idea  that  God  is  a  Social   Unit,  that  somehow 


60  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Plurality   belongs    to    His    interior    nature,   without 
thereby  destroying  the  simplicity  of  His  Essence. 

Between  these  two  extremities  of  the  Creation 
epic  are  inserted  other  kindred  suggestions,  sufficient 
to  set  the  imagination  working  without  satisfying 
the  reason  :  "  The  earth  was  without  form  and  void  ; 
and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep  ;  and 
the  Spirit  of  God  \Riiach  EloJiin{\  was  moving — 
brooding — on  the  face  of  the  waters."  What  is  this 
Spirit  of  God  ?  The  Jewish  rabbis  understood  it  to 
be  a  mighty  wind,  the  wind  of  God,  which  is  also 
Professor  Cheyne's  interpretation.  That  the  Hebrew 
word,  like  its  Greek  equivalent,  primarily  signifies 
wind  or  air  is,  of  course,  well  known  ;  but  the  verb 
"  brood  "  has  reference  to  some  wind  which  has  life. 
Physical  wind  docs  not  "  brood."  The  verb,  there- 
fore, helps  the  noun  over  from  its  physical  significa- 
tion to  its  spiritual  equivalent.  On  the  other  hand, 
that  Moses  and  his  contemporaries  conceived  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  distinct  hypostasis  in  the 
Divine  Essence  is  to  precipitate  the  historical 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And 
yet,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  language  signifies  more 
than  physical  air  in  motion.  An  influence,  emana- 
ting from  God,  for  which  the  writer  could  find  no 
apter  title  than  Spirit,  blew  like  a  warm  south  wind 
on  the  recently  created  chaotic  mass,  and  this  Breath 
of  God  vitalised  the  dead  matter,  and  gradually 
from  the  fermenting  chaos  evolved  the  present 
cosmos.  Never  again  is  the  Spirit  of  God  allowed 
in  the  Bible  to  drop  out  of  sight.  By  degrees  it 
assumes  greater  definiteness  ;  and  by  the  time  the 
New  Testament  is  reached,  it  is  no  longer  "  It,"  but 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      6 1 

"He."  The  Divine  Influence  has  reached  the  dignity 
of  a  Divine  Personality. 

Our  attention  is  further  arrested  by  the  phrase, 
seven  times  repeated,  "  And  God  said."  He  created, 
not  by  a  bare  act  of  voHtion,  as  one  might  before- 
hand have  expected,  but  by  His  Word.  The  Divine 
Will  finds  expression  in  a  Divine  Word,  and  by 
this  Word  all  things,  from  their  first  inception  on 
the  Creation  morn  to  their  full  completion  on  the 
evening  of  the  sixth  day,  were  created.  In  sub- 
sequent Scriptures  frequent  references  are  made  to 
this  Word  of  the  Creation  chapter  ;  and  the  uniform 
teaching  is  that  God  created,  not  by  a  bare  act  of 
will,  but  by  the  Utterance  of  His  mouth.  Further 
on  this  creative  Word  or  Fiat  finds  its  personification 
in  the  Wisdom  of  Proverbs.  When  we  arrive  at 
the  New  Testament,  the  poetic  personification  is 
superseded  by  a  Divine  Personality.  The  Word 
of  Moses  grew  into  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  into  the  Logos  of  St.  John  : 
"In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  God  was  the  Word.  This  was 
in  the  beginning  with  God.  By  Him  was  every- 
thing made,  and  without  Him  was  nothing  made 
that  was  made." 

In  the  tiny  seed  held  on  the  palm  of  your  hand, 
which  the  gentlest  breeze  can  blow  away,  however 
much  magnified  by  microscopic  lens,  you  cannot 
perceive  the  summer  rose.  And  yet,  when  the 
rose  is  exhibited  before  your  wondering  eyes,  in 
all  the  wealth  of  its  colour  and  the  exquisiteness 
of  its  fragrance,  you  are  obliged  to  believe  that  the 
rose   was   potentially   in    the   seedling — roots,   stem. 


62  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

petals,  colour,  aroma,  and  all.  Thus  reading  the 
Creation  account  in  the  front  page  of  the  Bible, 
none  could  foretell,  however  minute  the  analysis, 
into  what  this  mysterious  Word  would  develop.  But 
seeing  the  Rose  of  Sharon  and  the  Lily  of  the 
Valleys  display  their  incomparable  loveliness  in 
the  Gospels,  we  follow  back  the  stalk  through 
the  Old  Testament,  till  at  last  we  discover  the  first 
germ  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  In  the  doctrine 
of  Creation  is  rooted  deeply  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  ;  in  the  Creation  story  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  finds  its  first  adumbration.  What 
marvellous  correspondences  between  the  beginning 
of  the  Bible  and  the  end  !  What  wonderful  har- 
monies fill  the  contemplative  soul  with  gratitude 
and  praise  ! 

IV.  Seeing  that  God  is  self-existent,  and  therefore 
eternal  and  self-sufficient,  having,  within  the  circle 
of  His  own  nature,  the  fellowship  requisite  for 
blessedness,  why  did  He  create  at  all  ?  Luther's 
remark  that  before  creation  "  He  was  in  a  birch 
plantation  cutting  rods,"  wherewith  to  punish  people 
who  ask  impertinent  questions,  has  not  deterred 
theologians  from  propounding  the  query  and  pressing 
for  an  answer.  Moses'  reply  is  plain — He  created 
because  He  willed.  God's  freedom  to  create  or  not 
stands  out  conspicuously  in  Old  Testament  theology. 
Invariably  the  Creation  is  traced  up  to  its  fountain 
head  in  the  Divine  Sovereignty.  The  Hebrew 
doctrine  is  that  God  of  His  good  pleasure,  in  absolute 
freedom  of  will,  chose  to  create,  when  He  might 
have  withheld  His  energising  fiat,  without  either 
damaging  His  Godhead  or  diminishing  His  beatitude. 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      63 

No  external  pressure,  no  outside  necessity,  no  dark 
fate  constrained  Him  to  exert  His  omnipotence  to 
people  immensity  with  worlds.  He  was  God  blessed 
for  ever.  This  is  a  Biblical  truth,  and  should  never 
be  forgotten  or  ignored.  It  occupies  a  prominent 
place  in  Calvinism,  which  always,  and  with  propriety, 
lays  due  emphasis  on  the  Divine  Sovereignty  in 
creation  and  redemption,  sometimes, — to  its  own 
detriment,  an  exclusive  emphasis.  Further  than  this 
the  Mosaic  theology  does  not  go. 

However,  when  the  question  is  examined  in  the 
reflex  light  of  the  New  Testament,  a  complementary 
truth  forces  itself  on  the  mind — namely,  that  behind 
the  Sovereign  Will  lies  the  Divine  Nature,  whose 
ethical  essence  is  love  ;  and  love  cannot  deny  itself 
or  hide  its  light  under  a  bushel — love  must  impart. 
This  is  the  bonitas  comviunicativa  of  the  older  theo- 
logians. Being  essential  love,  God  could  not  but 
communicate  of  His  fulness.  The  nature,  especially 
in  an  all-perfect  Being,  determines  the  will.  The 
Divine  impulse,  if  one  may  so  speak,  moved  the 
Divine  will  to  create.  A  Divine  necessity  lay  at 
the  root  of  creation — not  a  physical,  but  a  moral 
necessity ;  and  moral  necessity  is  the  consummation 
of  freedom.  Let  us  not  be  frightened  by  a  word. 
The  idea  of  necessity  is  familiar  to  us  as  applied  to 
God  within  the  sphere  of  redemption—necessity  lay 
upon  God  to  punish  sin,  to  lay  the  penalty  of  our 
transgression  on  the  great  Substitute.  But  this 
necessity  did  not  cancel  His  liberty,  making  Him 
a  prisoner  to  His  own  nature.  The  same  principle 
holds  good  in  the  sphere  of  creation.  Moral  necessity 
is  absolute,  unconditioned  liberty.     Even  we,  in  our 


64  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

limited  capacity,  will  never  understand  *'  the  perfect 
law  of  liberty,"  till  we  experience  our  Christian 
impulses,  our  new  nature,  constraining  us,  with  over- 
powering force,  to  the  prompt  and  cheerful  pursuit 
of  all  Christian  service. 

"  Nothing  has  given  to  Pantheism,"  writes  Franz 
Hoffman,  "a  greater  appearance  of  reasonableness, 
and  consequently  of  truth,  than  the  idea  that  every 
theistic  theory  proceeds  necessarily  upon  the  sup- 
position of  a  certain  contingency  of  creation,  and 
that  the  affirmation.  Creation  is  a  free  act  of  God, 
is  identical  with  the  affirmation.  It  is  a  contingent  or 
accidental  act  of  God.  But  whosoever  attributes 
contingency  to  God  subjects  Him,  only  in  a  manner 
exactly  the  opposite  of  the  pantheistic,  to  blind  fate." 
Perfect  love  is  perfect  freedom  ;  and  the  decree  to 
create  is  the  combined  result  of  the  union  of  these 
two  high  attributes  of  the  Divine  Being.  "  Thou  art 
worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory  and  honour  and 
power ;  for  Thou  hast  created  all  things,  and  for  Thy 
pleasure  they  are  and  were  created"  (Rev.  iv.  ii). 

V.  Inasmuch  as  a  moral  necessity  lay  on  God  to 
create,  many  distinguished  theologians — Origen  in 
ancient  times  and  Delitzsch  in  our  age — have  main- 
tained that  the  act  of  creation  is  eternal,  and 
that  therefore  the  universe  is  strictly  without  a 
beginning.  But  they  seem  to  overlook  the  counter- 
balance of  truths,  thereby  driving  the  Divine  neces- 
sity of  creation  into  the  suppression  of  the  Divine 
sovereignty.  The  Bible,  however,  holds  the  one  truth 
over  against  the  other,  thereby  securing  the  due 
"  proportion  of  the  faith."  But  even  were  the 
doctrine    of    Eternal    Creation    true,   as   taught    by 


THE  CREATOR  AND  THE  CREATION      65 

Origen  and  Dclitzsch,  it  should  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  the  materialistic  dogma  of  the  self- 
existence  of  the  Creation  as  taught  by  some  modern 
scientists.  The  former  is  theistic,  distinguishing 
between  eternal  existence  and  self-existence,  there- 
by making  matter  and  its  laws  dependent  upon  God. 
The  latter  is  atheistic,  making  matter  eternal  because 
self-existent,  and  therefore  in  complete  indepen- 
dence of  a  Supreme  Being.  How  remarkable  that 
the  writer  of  Genesis  should  steer  clear  of  these 
quagmires!  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth." 

According  to  Moses,  God,  at  some  definite  moment 
in  the  remote  past,  came  out  of  His  solitude  and 
broke  on  the  silence  of  the  eternal  ages  by  uttering 
His  creative  word.  The  Hebrew  poet  describes  Him 
as  "  setting  a  compass  on  the  face  of  the  deep,"  marking 
out  in  empty  space  the  orbits  of  the  stars.  Borrowing 
this  metaphor  from  the  inspired  bard,  Milton  repre- 
sents this  initial  act  of  creation  with  a  majesty  and 
dignity  which  only  writers  of  the  stateliest  order 
can  command  : 

Then  stayed  the  fervid  wheels,  and  in  His  hand 
He  took  the  golden  compasses,  prepared 
In  God's  eternal  store,  to  circumscribe 
This  universe,  and  all  created  things. 
One  foot  He  centred,  and  the  other  turned 
Round  through  the  vast  profundity  obscure, 
And  said,  Thus  far  extend,  thus  far  thy  bounds, 
This  be  thy  just  circumference,  O  world  !  ^ 

By   this  act   of  creation,   by   which    He   imposed 
His    own   will  on    the  universe,   God  is   represented 

^  Paradise  Lost,  Book  VII. 

5 


66  PRIMEVAL    REVELATION 

as  transcending  all  the  works  of  His  hands — He 
independent  of  them,  they  not  independent  of  Him. 
Yet  this  distinctness  of  the  Creator  from  the  creation 
must  not  be  interpreted  into  separateness.  The 
Word  is  followed  by  the  Spirit,  who 

Dovelike  sat  brooding  on  the  vast  abyss. 

The  transcendence  of  God  and  the  immanence  of 
God — these  be  the  two  contrary,  not  contradictory, 
truths,  which  in  their  point  of  union  uphold  Hebrew 
theology,  natural  and  revealed. 


CHAPTER    II 

CREATION   AND   GEOLOGY 

THE  first  chapter  of  Genesis  gives  an  account 
of  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  but  evidently 
the  account  cannot  be  history  in  the  usual  accep- 
tation of  the  word.  For  what  is  history  ?  The 
written  or  traditional  testimony  of  men  to  a  group 
of  occurrences  or  a  succession  of  events,  of  which 
they  have  either  direct  or  indirect  cognisance. 
Obviously,  therefore,  a  human  history  is  not  possible, 
for  men  were  not  present  to  witness  the  beginning. 
In  the  beginning  God  alone  was  ;  He  was  the  sole 
spectator  of  the  initial  act  of  creation.  Conse- 
quently this  Creation  story  cannot  rank  as  history 
alongside  the  memoirs  of  Napoleon  or  the  annals 
of  Tacitus. 

But  clearly  a  natural  history  of  the  world  is 
possible,  as  the  result  of  the  close  study  of  the 
Creation  itself,  a  patient  research  into  the  footprints 
and  handprints  of  the  Creator.  This  is  Nature's 
autobiography,  which  it  is  the  aim  of  scientific  men 
to  read  in  the  rocks  and  transcribe  into  the 
printed  page.  Slowly  they  turn  over  Nature's 
ponderous  leaves,  and  endeavour  to  read  thereon 
their  past  history. 

Two  things,  however,  should  be  always  borne  in 
67 


68  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

mind.  First,  that  hitherto  scientists  have  only 
turned  over  a  few  leaves  of  Nature's  book  ;  and 
therefore  the  history  of  Creation  already  written 
by  them  is  not  complete.  Second,  that  the  leaves 
which  they  have  turned  over  are  much  blurred,  so 
that  their  decipherment  is  not  always  trustworthy. 
Every  year  they  are  obliged  to  modify  their 
versions  of  what  Nature  really  teaches  concerning 
herself.  This  seems  necessary  to  be  said,  because 
of  the  obvious  proneness  of  specialists,  who  strenu- 
ously deny  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  to  transfer 
that  infallibility  to  their  science.  Whatever  Science 
is,  she  is  neither  complete  nor  inerrant,  she  has 
neither  read  the  whole  of  the  book  of  Nature,  nor 
has  she  always  rightly  construed  the  pages  she 
has  examined.  No  phenomenon  is  more  common 
than  for  one  generation  of  scientific  men  to  amend 
the  theories  of  their  predecessors. 
\  The  writer  of  Genesis,  however,  was  not  a  man 
of  science,  and  did  not  profess  to  write  a  scientific 
history.  How  then  to  account  for  this  Creation 
story?  That  it  is  the  mere  product  of  a  lively 
imagination,  however  pious  and  reverent,  makes  too 
great  a  demand  on  our  credulity.  Other  nations 
furnish  us  with  cosmogonies  in  abundance,  but  in 
them  there  is  clear  evidence  of  their  human  source. 
The  imperfections  and  ignorance  of  the  inventors 
are  clearly  stamped  on  their  inventions,  which  teem 
with  puerilities,  absurdities,  and  are  everywhere 
touched  with  the  marks  of  our  infirmities.  But  the 
cosmology  of  Genesis  is  in  its  conception  religious, 
in  its  description  sublime,  and,  if  the  testimony  of 
able,  learned  geologists  like  Professors  Dawson,  Dana, 


CREATION   AND   GEOLOGY  69 

and  Guyot  is  to  be  believed,  harmonious  to  a 
wonderful  extent,  not  indeed  with  the  rash  con- 
jectures, but  with  the  established  facts,  of  modern 
science.  To  me,  therefore,  there  is  but  one  theory 
possible  :  that  the  first  author,  be  he  who  he  may, 
received  Divine  illumination,  that  the  Spirit  of  God^ 
which  moved  over  the  chaos  of  creation,  brooded 
over  the  confusion  of  his  mind,  and  evolved  this 
chapter— a  standing  miracle  in  literature,  the  fierce 
assaults  of  infidel  criticism  notwithstanding. 

The  supposition  of  Kurtz,  popularised  in  this 
country  in  the  picturesque  pages  of  Hugh  Miller, 
'that  God  vouchsafed  to  Moses  a  series  of  six 
visions,  in  which  he  saw  as  in  a  grand  panorama 
the  successive  stages  of  the  creative  work,  has  been 
rendered  untenable  by  the  discovery  of  the  Assyrian 
tablets,  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Reading  the 
Mosaic  version  and  the  Chalda^an  version,  "from 
before  the  days  of  Abraham,  we  are  at  once  struck 
with  the  vast  superiority  of  the  Mosaic,  in  its  total 
exemption  from  all  superstitious  overgrowth  ;  but 
more  striking  than  the  differences  are  the  resem- 
blances. The  conviction  is  carried  home  to  the 
mind  that  the  one  is  borrowed  from  the  other,  or 
rather  that  the  two  flow  from  one  common  fountain. 
Where  can  that  common  source  be  found  except 
in  the  family  of  Noah  ?  and  where  could  Noah  have 
obtained  the  information  except  from  the  doctrine 
of  Creation  as  held  by  the  antediluvian  Church? 
Thus  we  are  shut  in  to  a  belief  in  a  primeval  reve- 
lation granted  to  the  first  ancestors  of  the  race,  of 
which  Moses  is  only  the  transcriber. 

That    Moses   had    not    in    view   to   teach    geology 


•JO  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

has  been  already  conceded.  No  one,  reading  his 
account,  would  come  away  from  it  having  any 
conception  of  the  recent  discoveries  of  geologic 
science.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  write  to  teach  science, 
another  quite  to  write  so  as  not  to  contradict 
science.  It  is  a  healthy  instinct  of  the  mind 
to  expect,  if  not  to  demand,  that  revealed  truth 
should  not  contradict  natural  truth ;  and  this  is 
all  that  is  here  claimed  for  Moses.  The  harmony 
is  negative,  not  positive.  Something  like  super- 
natural tact  was  required  to  mould  the  expressions 
in  such  manner  that  the  Mosaic  account  would  be 
accepted  in  every  stage  of  scientific  development. 
The  account  is  in  agreement  with  all  stages,  in 
contradiction  to  none. 

"  Had  Moses  written  under  the  guidance  of  his 
own  independent  judgment — had  he  embodied 
merely  the  vague  and  puerile  traditions  of  the  early 
ages,  or  put  on  record  his  own  speculative  views 
and  conjectures  in  natural  philosophy — it  is  next  to 
impossible  that  he  could  have  framed  a  narrative 
containing  descriptions  so  just,  and  expressed  in 
terms  so  appropriate,  as  would  not  jar  with  subse- 
quent discoveries  made  in  the  material  world.  The 
narrative  of  Moses  would  have  shared  the  fate  of 
all  the  ancient  cosmogonies  delineated  by  heathen 
writers  as  exhibiting  the  traditions  of  their  respective 
nations,  and  which  are  altogether  exploded  as — 
however  suited  to  the  simple  character  and  limited 
capacity  of  an  early,  a  dark,  and  credulous  age — 
inconsistent  with  justcr  and  more  enlightened  views 
of  the  mundane  system.  But,  on  the  contrary,  it 
still    retains   a   deep    and    immovable    hold    on    the 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  ^I 

rational  belief  of  the  majority  of  men  in  the  most 
civilised  countries  of  the  world ;  and  the  reason 
is,  that  Moses,  writing  under  the  influence  of  Divine 
inspiration,  seems  to  have  been  led,  perhaps  uncon- 
sciously to  himself,  to  employ  language  which 
contains  a  latent  expansive  meaning,  the  full  import 
of  which  time  only  can  evolve,  and  which,  when 
rightly  interpreted,  would  be  capable  of  adjustment 
with  all  the  researches  and  discoveries  which  the 
progress  of  scientific  light  might  shed  on  the  works 
of  God  in  all  future  time."^ 

Thus  this  first  chapter  is  written  with  wonderful 
breadth.  Whilst  it  is  definite,  exact,  precise  in  its 
religious  teaching,  the  great  object  in  view,  its 
phraseology  on  its  material  side  is  characterised 
by  vagueness,  elasticity,  and  is  capable  of  accommo- 
dation to  every  stage  of  scientific  knowledge.  So 
far  from  being  a  drawback,  this  constitutes  its 
distinctive  glory  :  precision,  definiteness  in  its  teaching 
concerning  God,  elasticity  and  expansiveness  in  its 
references  to  natural  phenomena.  It  neither  ante- 
dates by  premature  disclosures  the  discoveries  of 
science,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  it,  like  all 
heathen  cosmogonies,  contradict  these  discoveries 
when  made.  Those,  be  they  believers  or  sceptics, 
who  demand  that  the  Bible,  if  a  Divine  revelation, 
should  positively  harmonise  with  science  hardly 
know  what  they  ask.  Harmonise  with  science ! 
With  what  science  ?  The  science  of  the  nineteenth 
century  or  the  science  of  the  tenth  or  the  science 
of  the  first  ?  If  it  accorded  with  either  of  these, 
it  would  conflict  with  the  others.  It  will  be  soon 
^  Dr.  Jamieson,  Com.,  vol.  i.,  p.  48. 


72  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

enough  to  insist  on  absolute  reconciliation,  when 
we  learn  what  true  science  really  teaches.  In 
another  hundred  years,  savants,  yea,  the  common 
people,  will  smile  at  the  crudities  and  mistakes  of 
Tyndall  and  Huxley's  science.  The  remark  has 
much  point  that  it  is  easier  to  reconcile  Genesis 
with  geology  than  to  reconcile  the  last  edition  of 
Lyell's  Geology  with  the  first — the  discrepancies  and 
contradictions  are  fewer. 

I.  To  understand  the  drift  of  this  Creation  story, 
we  ought  to  try  to  catch  the  writer's  spirit.  The 
account  is  manifestly  written  in  the  pictorial,  poetic 
mode,  the  grand  prophetic  style,  with  ever-receding, 
ever-widening  horizons  ;  and  the  preliminary  duty 
of  a  faithful  interpreter  is  to  drink  in  the  spirit  of 
the  document,  to  partake  to  as  large  a  degree  as 
possible  of  the  enthusiasm  of  the  author.  Read  this 
chapter  audibly  in  your  chamber,  that  your  ear  may 
catch  its  stately  rhythm ;  read  it  devoutly  in  a 
wondering  mood,  and  you  will  instantly  feel  that  all 
quibbles  are  here  out  of  place,  such  as  the  controversy 
concerning  the  length  of  the  Creation  "  days," — 
whether  they  signify  twenty-four  hours  on  the 
kitchen  clock,  or  twenty-four  million  years  on  the 
great  dial  of  the  universe.  In  the  presence  of 
the  rhythmic  movement  of  the  Creation  work,  such 
inquiries  remind  us  of  the  man  who,  on  the  top  of 
Snowdon,  when  the  sun  was  rising  like  a  ball  of  fire, 
round  and  large  and  red,  broke  on  the  awe-inspiring 
silence  by  asking  in  a  tone  of  frivolity,  Who  won 
the  Derby  yesterday  ?  That  Moses  thought  of  the 
measurement  of  time  is  incredible.  If  you  subjected 
him   to   cross-examination,    and   demanded    of    him 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  73 

greater  precision  in  his  definition,  he  would  probably 
have  stared  you  vacantly  in  the  face  till  you  would 
blush  crimson,  because  of  the  utter  incongruity  of  the 
inquiry.     The  descent,  the  anti-climax,  is  ludicrous. 

Never  require  of  a  poet  to  define  his  meaning — 
he  cannot  attempt  it  without  abdicating  his  high 
vocation.  In  my  student  days,  fired  with  the  ambi- 
tion of  writing  poetry,  T  published  a  poem.  A 
carping  critic,  reviewing  the  work  in  a  newspaper, 
quoted  certain  lines,  and  inquired  contemptuously 
what  could  the  meaning  be.  Sensitive  as  most 
young  authors  are,  especially  if  the  hot  Celtic  blood 
courses  swiftly  in  their  veins,  I  ventured  on  a  reply 
and  attempted  a  definition.  When  I  beheld  my 
poetry  reduced  to  prose,  tame  though  stately,  and 
printed  in  small  type,  the  conviction  was  carried 
home  instantaneously  to  my  mind  that  I  had  lost 
all  my  beautiful  plumage — if  ever  I  had  any.  The 
gloss,  the  colour,  the  glow  were  all  gone,  and  the 
winged  poet,  who  had  hoped  to  carol  at  the  portals 
of  the  morn,  was  a  poor  barndoor  chanticleer  crow- 
ing on  the  gate-bar.  The  heavenliest  poet  Wales 
produced  this  century  told  me  he  much  liked  the 
poem,  and  was  specially  captivated  by  the  passage 
in  question,  all  the  more  because  of  its  mystic  vague- 
ness ;  but  that  the  explanation  I  had  ventured  to 
offer  did  not  improve  it — a  judgment  all  the  more 
humiliating  because  of  my  prior  consciousness  of 
its  truth. 

An  exact,  scientific  exposition  of  an  inspired  poem 
is  an  absurdity.  The  spirit  of  criticism  and  the  spirit 
of  poetry  or  prophecy  are  the  two  contrary  currents 
in  the  world  of  mind,  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal 


74  fRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

forces— one  binding  to  the  centre,  the  other  struggling 
to  escape  therefrom  and  break  the  chains  of  sense. 
You  cannot  understand  the  one  by  confronting  it 
with  the  other.  Criticism  is  the  centre-seeking, 
poetry  the  centre-fleeing  force,  both  doubtless 
necessary  to  keep  the  world  in  equipoise.  The 
spirit  of  poetry  seeks  the  vast,  the  boundless,  the 
immeasurable  ;  it  endeavours,  so  far  as  in  it  lies,  to 
transcend  the  bounds  of  time  and  space.  Read  this 
chapter  with  the  poet's  eye  and  fire,  and  it  will  be 
true  every  jot  and  tittle.  Not  true  in  the  material, 
scientific  sense,  cribbed,  cabined,  and  confined  in  a 
fine-wrought  iron  cage ;  but  true  in  the  large, 
expanding,  ever-growing  spiritual  vision — as  all  true 
poetry  is — truer  far  than  even  the  poet  himself 
knew,  truer  than  science  will  ever  perceive. 

Thoughts  beyond  their  thoughts 
To  those  old  bards  were  given. 

Never  ask  a  poet  for  an  interpretation  of  his  dream. 
Never  demand  of  a  prophet  an  exposition  of  his 
prophecy, — be  it  prophecy  with  its  face  turned 
toward  the  past,  as  in  the  present  instance,  or  with 
its  face  turned  toward  the  future,  as  in  the  apoca- 
lyptic visions  of  St.  John.  "  The  prophets  inquired 
and  searched  diligently,  searching  what  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in 
them  did  signify"  (i  Pet.  i.  lO,  ii).  They  did 
not  completely  understand  their  own  writings,  did 
not  fully  comprehend  their  own  thoughts.  That 
tlic  truths  to  which  they  gave  utterance  did  not 
originate  with  them,  that  they  were  only  the  media 
of    their    transmission    from     a    mysterious     source 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  75 

above  and  behind   them,  their  consciousness   clearly 
testified. 

This  consciousness  is  universal  among  all  imagi- 
native writers.  Accordingly  the  great  poets  invoke 
the  inspiration  of  the  Muse.  With  the  poetasters 
of  the  day  this  invocation  is  an  empty  form,  with 
no  heartfelt  earnestness  in  it.  With  the  poets  of 
the  first  magnitude,  however,  it  was  far  otherwise  ; 
they  felt  the  rush  and  swell  of  the  tide  of  inspiration 
within  them,  the  tide  which  betokened  the  shoreless 
ocean  of  living,  self-moving  truth.  Whenever  they 
allotted  themselves  a  mighty  task,  they  prayerfully 
besought  the  tide  to  return,  they  invoked  the  up- 
lifting influence  of  the  celestial  Muse.  What  is  true 
of  the  ethnic  poet  is  trebly  true  of  the  Hebrew 
prophet.  This  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  till  we 
approach  it  with  prophetic  eye  and  fire,  will  baffle 
all  attempts  at  a  satisfactory  interpretation. 

It  begins  at  an  infinite  height  :  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  And  the 
earth  was  without  form  and  void;  and  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.  And  the  Spirit 
of  God  moved  on  the  face  of  the  waters."  Do  you 
not  feel  yourselves  carried  far  beyond  the  boundaries 
of  sense  and  science  ?  "  And  the  earth  was  without 
form  and  void  " — to  Jul  vabohu  ;  the  weird  assonance 
fills  the  heart  with  dread  and  terror.  "And  God 
said.  Let  there  be  light  ;  and  there  was  light." 
Writers  on  oratory,  from  Longinus  down,  quote 
this  as  a  specimen  of  the  sublime  in  composition, 
the  standard  by  which  to  judge  other  passages  laying 
claim  to  this  rare  distinction.  The  Divine  Word 
breaks   on   the    eternal    silence,    and    booms   on,   on, 


"J^  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

on,  through  the  boundless  expanse  of  the  infinite 
void.  "  And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and  the 
darkness  He  called  Night."  How  long  was  that 
night  of  darkness  which  hovered  over  the  waters? 
How  long  the  day  which  followed?  Here  Dr. 
Marcus  Dods  breaks  in  :  "  If  the  word  '  day'  in  this 
chapter  does  not  mean  a  period  of  twenty-four 
hours,  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  hopeless."  ^ 
What  a  jarring  discordant  note  is  this,  in  the  midst 
of  the  rich  music  of  the  Creation  movement  !  All 
this  loftiness  of  thought  and  magnificence  of  style, 
after  all,  mean — twenty-four  hours  on  the  kitchen 
clock  !  But  even  on  Dr.  Dods'  own  principle  of 
interpretation,  how  can  it  be  twenty-four  hours, 
seeing  the  light  only  is  called  Day,  whereas  the 
darkness  is  called  Night  ?  He  should  divide  day 
and  night  equally,  and  make  them  exactly  twelve 
hours  each.  But,  according  to  Moses,  the  night  was 
without  a  beginning,  enveloping  in  its  dark  shroud, 
as  was  becoming,  the  confused,  weltering,  primordial 
chaos  ;  and  the  day  was  before  the  sun  either  rose 
or  set.  Consequently  it  could  not  signify  a  solar 
day,  but  a  day  of  the  Lord  which  He  Himself  had 
named,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  great  Augustine, 
a  God-divided,  not  a  man-divided,  day. 

Attempt  not  to  measure  it,  else  you  reduce  the 
Creator  into  the  dimensions  of  a  maker  of  chrono- 
meters. "  These  are  the  generations  of  the  earth 
and  the  heavens  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made 
the  earth  and  the  heavens"  (Gen.  ii.  4).  Does  "day" 
here  mean  twenty-four  hours  ?  Even  on  Dr.  Dods' 
own  method  of  interpretation  it  plainly  includes  six 
'   Genesis  (Expositor's  Series),  p.  4. 


CREATION    AND    GEOLOGY 


77 


times  twenty-four  hours.  Indisputably  the  term 
"  day  "  is  used  frequently— not  less  than  one  hundred 
times— by  Bible  writers  in  a  vague,  indefinite  sense, 
synonymous  with  period,  contracting  and  expanding 
according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion.  Can  the 
Higher  Critics  or  their  followers  suggest  a  more  ap- 
propriate Hebrew  term  for  period  ?  I  am  told  they 
cannot  It  is  not  by  taking  language  in  a  large 
pictorial  sense,  affording  room  for  the  imagination 
to  flap  therein  its  big,  extended  wings,  and  sail  away 
from  the  finite  to  the  infinite,  that  the  "  interpretation 
of  Scripture  is  made  hopeless,"  but  by  insisting  on 
measuring  its  dimensions  with  an  inch  tape  and 
making  it  fit  the  carpenter's  rule. 

The  best  method  of  ascertaining  the  signification 
of  the  term  in  this  passage  is  to  ask  what  impression 
it  left  on  the  minds  of  its  Hebrew  readers.  Not 
how  German  and  English  students  understand  the 
chapter,  for  these  are  divided  into  contentious  bands  ; 
but  how  did  the  Hebrew  saints  and  seers  themselves 
understand  it  ?  The  Bible  is  its  own  best  interpreter. 
This  Creation  story  was  the  staple  of  the  literature 
of  the  ancient  sages.  Psalms  and  prophecies  without 
number  prove  that  it  was  widely  read  and  much 
studied  ;  echoes  of  it  continually  resound  throughout 
the  Old  Testament.  Is  there  a  single  verse  which 
indicates  or  suggests  the  idea  of  twenty-four  hours  ? 
Is  not  the  drift  of  thought  uniformly,  without  ex- 
ception, towards  long  reaches  of  time?  What  did 
Moses  himself  understand  by  it  ?  Were  he  catechised 
in  his  cold,  critical,  unemotional  moods,  he  would 
probably  have  been  embarrassed  to  give  an  answer  ; 
his  slowness  of  speech  would  have  suddenly  returned  ; 


78  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

possibly  he  might  momentarily  acquiesce  in  Dr. 
Dods'  twenty-four  hours  on  the  kitchen  clock.  But 
the  mood  in  which  he  wrote  is  also  the  mood  in 
which  he  could  interpret — the  high,  poetic,  prophetic, 
inspirational  mood  ;  and  happily  Moses  wrote 
another  short  poem,  which  directly  reflects  light  on 
the  Creation  epic. 

Read  the  ninetieth  Psalm,  "  A  prayer  of  Moses, 
the  man  of  God."  That  the  authorship  of  this  Psalm 
is  contested,  I  of  course  know  ;  but  men  of  com- 
petent scholarship  pronounce  in  favour  of  its  Mosaic 
authorship.  But  be  the  author  who  he  may,  it  is 
clearly  an  echo  of  the  Creation  story,  and  therefore 
illustrates  the  Mosaic  meaning.  "  Lord,  Thou  hast 
been  our  dwelling-place  in  all  generations  " — genera- 
tions, ages,  periods,  olains,  the  great  time-word  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Occasionally,  by  the  inter- 
preters, it  is  lifted  from  its  temporal  relations  to 
signify  eternity.  "  Before  the  mountains  were 
brought  forth,  or  ever  Thou  hadst  formed  the  earth 
and  the  world  " — do  you  not  discern  here  the  clear 
echoes  of  the  Creation  poem  ?  do  you  not  feel  that 
you  are  moving  on  the  high  altitude  of  the  Creation 
chapter? — "even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting. 
Thou  art,  O  God."  "Everlasting":  again  the  great 
word  "  olaviy  "  From  olam  to  olam,  from  period 
to  period,  from  age  to  age.  Thou  art,  O  God." 
Do  you  hear  there  the  tick  of  the  clock  ?  Does 
the  pendulum  swing  within  a  mahogany  case  ? 
From  olam  to  olam,  from  age  to  age,  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting, — what  an  immeasurable  swing 
the  pendulum  takes !  What  cso7i  is  in  the  Greek 
is  olam  in  the  Hebrew.     "  For  a  thousand  years  in 


CREATION   AND  GEOLOGY  79 

Thy  sight  arc  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past." 
St.  Peter's  exposition  of  this  cannot  be  improved  : 
"  Be  not  ignorant  of  this  one  thing,  that  one  day 
is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thou- 
sand years  as  one  day."  "  Our  days  are  passed 
away  in  Thy  wrath ;  we  spend  our  years  as  a 
tale  that  is  told.  The  days  of  our  years  are  three- 
score years  and  ten,"  How  brief  our  existence, 
how  fragile  our  life  !  "  But  Thou,  O  God,  art — from 
olam  to  olam,  from  measureless  age  to  measureless 
age."  No  ;  Moses  did  not  mean  twenty-four  hours. 
His  imagination  stretches  out  and  away  after 
limitless  time. 

How  did  other  Scriptural  writers  understand  this 
epic  ?  What  impressions  did  it  make  on  their  minds  ? 
Fortunately  we  have  their  interpretation  also — not 
prosaic,  technical,  scientific,  but  poetic,  imaginative, 
glowing  with  religious  emotion.  Poets  best  under- 
stand poets.  Take  Prov.  viii.  22-31 — a  passage 
evidently  based  on  the  Creation  chapter.  We  are 
so  accustomed  to  it  that  our  sense  of  its  marvellous 
power  is  somewhat  blunted  ;  the  following  paraphrase 
will  not,  therefore,  be  unacceptable  :  "  The  Lord  pos- 
sessed me  from  the  antiquities  of  the  earth," — as 
though  that,  instead  of  being  three  thousand  years 
old  and  one  week  over,  were  the  remotest  conception 
to  which  the  human  mind  could  reach.  "  I  was  with 
Him  yom,  yom— day,  day,  day  after  day — even  with 
the  Ancient  of  Days,  before  each  of  His  works  of 
old."  Do  you  hear  there  the  Bells  of  Aberdovey  ^ — 
one,  two,  three  ?  "  Before  the  tehom,  before  the 
springing  of  the  fountains,  before  the  mountains  were 
^  A  popular  Welsh  air. 


8o  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

settled,  before  the  hills  arose,  before  the  primeval 
dust  of  the  world,  when  He  was  preparing  the 
heavens,  when  He  was  setting  a  compass  on  the 
face  of  the  deep,  when  He  made  the  rakia,  or  estab- 
lished the  clouds  to  stand  above,  when  He  made 
strong  the  fountains  of  the  deep,  and  put  His  law 
upon  the  sea :  during  all  this  time  I  was  there,  yom, 
yom — day,  day  ;  I  was  the  architect,  rejoicing  always 
before  Him."  ' 

Let  us  again  turn  to  Job  xxxviii.  The  poet  has 
evidently  studied  the  Mosaic  story  of  Creation  ;  and 
his  imagination  catching  fire,  he  paraphrases  it  in 
lano'uao-e  which  fills  us  with  awe  and   wonderment : 

o         o 

"  Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words 
without  knowledge?  Gird  up  now  thy  loins  like 
a  man  :  for  I  will  demand  of  thee,  and  answer  thou 
me.  Where  wast  thou  when  I  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  earth?  declare,  if  thou  hast  understanding. 
Who  hath  laid  the  measures  thereof,  if  thou  knowest  ? 
or  who  hath  stretched  the  line  upon  it  ?  Whereupon 
are  the  foundations  thereof  fastened?  or  who  laid 
the  corner  thereof;  when  the  morning  stars  sang 
together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy? 
or  who  shut  up  the  sea  with  doors,  when  it  broke 
forth,  as  if  it  had  issued  out  of  the  womb  ? "  etc. 
Can  you  read  this  sublime  passage,  and  then  ask, 
How  long  was  God  making  all  that,  a  week  ? 
"  There  are  here  no  narrow  computations,  no  petty 
fancies."  From  Genesis  to  Malachi  there  is  not 
a  single  verse  which  teaches  or  suggests  that  the 
Mosaic  "  day  "  was  only  twenty-four  hours  duration  ; 

'  Professor  Tayler  Lewis  in  Lange' s  Com.  (American 
Edition),  p.  137. 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  8 1 

the  invariable  tendency  is  to  stretch  it  out  to  its 
utmost  possibiUties,  and  then  fill  it  to  the  brim  with 
Divine  wonders.  The  way  wherein  Hebrew  saints 
and  prophets  understood  the  chapter,  and  not  the 
view  which  modern  commentators  chance  to  take, 
determines  the  general  drift  and  signification  of  this 
memorable  story. 

II.  From  the  time  or  duration  of  the  Creation 
let  us  proceed  to  pass  in  rapid  review  the  orderly 
arrangement  of  the  work  here  delineated. 

According  to  Moses,  during  the  first  three  days 
or  periods,  primordial  matter,  produced  by  the 
creative  fiat,  was  differentiated  into  light  and  dark- 
ness, dry  land  and  sea,  the  water  above  and  the 
water  below,  that  is,  the  water  which  rises  and  the 
water  which  falls.  Then,  during  the  three  succeeding 
days  or  periods,  first  the  inorganic  world  is  duly 
arranged  and  prepared  to  be  a  fit  abode  for  living 
creatures.  Then  is  introduced  the  vegetable  king- 
dom, for  in  the  soil  and  the  air  food  is  already 
provided  for  its  sustenance.  Then  follow  birds  of 
the  air  and  fishes  of  the  sea  to  disport  in  their 
respective  elements.  Thereafter  the  nobler  animals, 
especially  the  mammalia,  make  their  appearance, 
for  in  the  luxuriant  vegetation  already  prevalent 
ample  provision  is  made  for  their  comfort  and  sub- 
sistence. Last  of  all,  when  the  earth  is  completely 
furnished,  and  all  the  environments  properly  adapted, 
man  steps  on  the  scene,  a  summary  of  all  the  pre- 
ceding works,  and  the  sovereign  lord  of  nature.  Is 
not  this  also,  in  general  outline,  the  order  promulgated 
by  geological  science? 

However,   on  a   question   of  this  sort,  it  is  better 

6 


82  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

to  let  scientists  themselves  speak.  Dr.  Romanes 
writes  that  "  the  order  in  which  the  flora  and  fauna 
are  said  by  the  Mosaic  account  to  have  appeared 
upon  the  earth  corresponds  with  that  which  the 
theory  of  evolution  requires  and  the  evidence  of 
geology  proves."  ^  Professor  Haeckel,  the  most 
materialistic  of  all  the  evolutionists,  in  his  history 
of  creation,  makes  a  similar  admission.  "  Two  great 
and  fundamental  ideas,"  he  says,  "  common  also  to 
the  non-miraculous  theory  of  development,  meet  us 
in  the  Mosaic  history  of  creation,  with  surprising 
clearness  and  simplicity,  in  the  idea  of  separation 
or  differentiation,  and  the  idea  of  progressive  develop- 
ment or  perfecting.  Although  Moses  looks  on  the 
results  of  the  great  laws  of  organic  development, 
which  we  shall  later  point  out  as  the  necessary 
conclusion  of  the  doctrine  of  Descent,  as  the  direct 
action  of  a  constructive  Creator,  yet  in  his  theory 
there  lies  hidden  the  ruling  idea  of  a  progressive 
development  and  a  differentiation  of  the  originally 
simple  matter.  We  can,  therefore,  bestow  our  just 
and  sincere  admiration  on  the  Jewish  lawgiver's 
grand  insight  into  nature,  and  his  simple  and  natural 
hypothesis  of  creation,  without  discovering  in  it  a 
so-called  Divine  revelation."  ^  To  the  same  purport 
is  the  testimony  of  Sir  William  Dawson,  a  scientist 
who  has  rendered  invaluable  service  to  the  Christian 
faith  :  "  The  order  of  this  vision  of  the  creative 
work,  with  which  the  Bible  begins  the  history,  is 
so  closely  in  harmony  with  the  results  worked 
out  by  geological  investigations,  that  the  correspon- 
dences have  excited  marked  attention,  and  have  been 
*  Nature,  Aug.,  1881.       ^  History  of  Creatio?i,  vol.  i.,  p.  38. 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  83 

justly  regarded  as  establishing  the  common  author- 
ship of  nature  and  revelation." 

If  Moses  did  not  agree  with  geologists  on  questions 
relating  to  physical  science,  that  need  not  have 
invalidated  his  authority  in  the  department  of  religion 
and  ethics ;  but  when  he  does  agree,  why  deprive 
him  of  the  credit?  Why  the  eagerness,  especially 
in  a  section  of  Christian  ministers,  always  in  this 
connection  to  belaud  science  at  the  expense  of 
Moses?  I  only  plead  for  ordinary  fair  play  to 
Moses,  such  as  would  be  accorded  any  Greek  or 
Latin  author.  That  there  are  minor  discrepancies 
in  details,  in  our  present  stage  of  knowledge,  is 
possible,  nay,  probable  ;  but  it  is  premature  to  saddle 
the  responsibility  for  these  on  Moses.  For  what  is 
theology  ?  Man's  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  And 
what  is  science  ?  Man's  interpretation  of  nature. 
Between  these  two  interpretations  there  may  be 
collisions,  whilst  all  the  time  the  two  books,  Nature 
and  the  Bible,  may  be  in  perfect  accord.  In  his 
controversy  with  Mr.  Gladstone  a  few  years  ago, 
Professor  Huxley  supposed  he  had  conclusively 
convicted  Moses  of  error,  because  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  the  creation  of  birds  is  placed  before  the 
creation  of  reptiles,  a  statement  palpably  contradictory 
to  established  geological  truth.  But  really  Professor 
Huxley  only  demonstrated  that,  among  his  many 
brilliant  accomplishments,  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was 
not  included  ;  and,  further,  that  he  did  not  take  the 
trouble  to  consult  the  most  ordinary  commentary 
before  hurling  his  charge  against  a  document  so 
venerable,  for  it  is  now  generally  understood  that 
the  taninniin    of  ven  21   include  reptiles,  whilst  the 


84  PRIMEVAL   REVELxVTION 

"  creeping  things  "  of  vcr.  24  denote  the  smaller  and 
lower  mammals.  It  was  Huxley,  not  Moses,  who 
made  the  mistake. 

As  Christian  ministers  it  is  our  duty,  whilst  not 
blind  to  discrepancies  existing  in  our  present  stage 
of  incomplete  knowledge,  to  enlarge  principally  on 
the  agreements,  the  correspondences,  the  beautiful 
consonances  between  the  Words  and  the  Works  of 
God.  How  came  these  harmonies  about  ?  Do  they 
not  suggest  that  He,  the  work  of  whose  fingers  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  are,  had  also  a  hand  in  the 
composition  of  this  ancient  document  ?  "  These  are 
only  some  of  the  many  wonderful  harmonies  between 
this  old  revelation  and  modern  science.  I  would 
like  to  see  the  doctrine  of  Chances  applied  to  this 
problem,  to  determine  what  probability  there  would 
be  of  a  mere  guesser  or  inventor  hitting  upon  so 
many  things  that  correspond  with  what  modern 
science  reveals.  I  do  not  believe  there  would  be 
one  chance  in  a  million.  Is  it  not  far  harder  for  a 
sensible  man  to  believe  that  this  wonderful  apocalypse 
is  the  fruit  of  ignorance  and  guesswork  than  that 
it  is  the  product  of  inspiration  ?  It  is  simply  absurd 
that  an  ignorant  man  could  have  guessed  so  happily. 
Nay,  more.  Let  any  of  the  scientific  men  of  to-day 
set  themselves  down  to  write  out  a  history  of  creation 
in  a  space  no  larger  than  that  occupied  by  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  and  I  do  not  believe  they  could 
improve  on  it  at  all.  And  if  they  did  succeed  in 
producing  anything  that  would  pass  for  the  present, 
in  all  probability  in  ten  years  it  would  be  out  of  date. 
Our  apocalypse  of  creation  is  not  only  better  than 
could  have  been  expected  of  an  uninspired  man  in 


CREATION   AND   GEOLOGY  85 

the  days  of  the  world's  ignorance,  but  it  is  better 
than  Tyndall  or  Huxley  or  Haeckel  could  do  yet. 
If  they  think  not,  let  them  take  a  sheet  of  paper 
and  try."i 

This  wonderful,  complicated  process  reached  its 
culmination  and  crown  of  glory  in  the  creation  of 
man  the  evening  of  the  sixth  day.  Man,  it  is  evident, 
though  the  last  created,  was  the  first  in  the  thought 
and  plan  of  the  All-wise  Creator.  True  to  Aristotle's 
proposition,  the  posterior  in  appearance  is  the  prior 
in  idea.  The  first  in  realisation  is  the  last  in  plan, 
and  the  first  in  plan  the  last  in  realisation — a 
principle  pervading  the  Kingdom  of  Nature  as  well 
as  the  Kingdom  of  Grace.  The  thought  of  man  is 
the  dominant  truth  of  the  world,  the  proximate  final 
cause  of  all  that  exists  ;  everything  was  planned  in 
the  light  of  this  idea,  fashioned  and  regulated  with  a 
view  to  its  full  embodiment  in  the  first  progenitor 
of  the  race.  All  lines,  therefore,  converge  towards 
this  one  centre.  The  plan  moves  on  without  hasting 
and  without  resting  till  the  Divine  Image  in  a 
human  form  was  placed  on  the  apex  of  Creation's 
pedestal. 

Viewed  physically  man  is  a  microcosmos.  The 
custom  prevailed,  long  before  the  birth  of  modern 
science,  to  regard  man  as  a  summary  and  condensa- 
tion, in  his  own  person,  of  the  wider  cosmos  around 
him,  the  head  and  representative  of  all  the  creatures 
which  went  before.  One  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
gives  expression  to  this  truth  very  much  in  these 
precise  terms.  This  also  was  the  truth  the  Jewish 
rabbis  strove  to  express  metaphorically,  when  they 
^  Dr.  Munro  Gibson,  A^-es  before  Moses,  p.  71. 


86  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

set  forth  Adam  in  his  creation  of  gigantic  stature, 
commensurate  with  the  dimensions  of  the  world, 
but  that  gradually  his  physical  nature  contracted 
till  it  assumed  the  present  six  feet  standard  of  height. 
What  they  meant  manifestly  was  that  man  is  a 
complete  counterpart  of  the  mundane  system,  that 
in  the  external  world  there  is  nothing  which  does 
not  find  its  counterfoil  in  the  human  organism.  Man 
is  creation  condensed.  Modern  science  furnishes 
ample  corroboration  of  this.  All  nature,  animate 
and  inanimate,  is  distinctly  reproduced  in  the  human 
organism.  As  a  microcosmos,  man  is  emphatically 
a  physical  being,  the  veritable  centre  of  the  realm 
of  nature. 

On  the  other  side  of  his  being  man  is  a  microtheos 
— a  reproduction  on  a  finite  scale  of  the  substance 
and  attributes  of  the  infinite  God  Himself:  "And 
God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  Our  image,  after  Our 
likeness.  So  God  created  man  ;  in  His  own  image 
created  He  them."  Of  the  animals  and  trees  the 
asseveration  is  made  that  they  were  created  "  after 
their  kind."  Their  idea  or  type  was  imprinted 
within  their  nature  in  such  manner  that  they  could 
not  break  away  from  it.  Species,  so  far  as  evidence 
goes,  is  unalterably  fixed.  One  species  cannot  unite 
with  another  to  produce  a  third.  Hybrids  have  no 
power  of  multiplication.  In  her  just  austerity  Nature 
strikes  them  with  barrenness.  No  creature  can  raise 
himself,  and  become  a  member  of  a  nobler  family — 
he  is  tied  down  to  his  type  by  unbreakable  chains, 
is  created  "  after  his  kind,"  and  can  never  escape 
from  it.  The  "transmutation  of  species"  is  still  a 
hypothesis,  unverified  by  a  single  geological  specimen. 


CREATION    AND   GEOLOGY  87 

The  most  eminent  scientific  men — Murchison,  Agassiz, 
Owen,  and  others— have  declared  themselves  in 
positive  antagonism  to  it.  Plants  and  animals  are 
all  tied  down  to  their  types.  The  varieties  ever 
multiply,  the  type  still  abides.  But  of  man  Moses 
does  not  affirm  that  he  was  made  "  after  his  kind  " — 
a  most  significant  omission.  Rather  was  he  created 
after  another  "  kind,"  capable  of  endless  growth  and 
development,  till  he  would  "  become  as  one  of  the 
gods."  Divinity  is  the  pattern  of  humanity.  There 
is  in  God  a  human  and  in  man  a  Divine  element — 
a  truth  to  which  human  consciousness  in  all  nations 
bears  attestation.  According  to  the  Assyrian  legend, 
man  was  modelled  out  of  clay  moistened  with  the 
blood  of  a  god  ;  and  according  to  the  Greek,  the 
human  brain  was  kindled  into  mental  activity  by 
fire  stolen  from  heaven. 

In  our  bodies  we  belong  to  the  same  grenus  or 
family  as  the  animals  which  perish,  and  like  them 
are  subject  to  physical  laws.  In  our  spirits,  however, 
we  belong  to  the  same  genus  or  family  as  God,  and 
like  Him  are  subject,  not  to  physical,  but  to  meta- 
physical laws.  In  this  Mosaic  doctrine  of  the 
creation  of  man  in  the  Divine  image  is  afforded  us 
a  clue  to  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation.  Because 
man,  at  the  beginning  of  time,  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God,  it  was  possible  for  God,  in  the  fulness 
of  time,  to  be  made  in  the  likeness  of  man.  Postulate 
any  other  beginning  to  man  than  that  taught  by 
Moses,  and  the  Incarnation  becomes  an  impossibility. 
But  as  man  was  created  in  the  Divine  image  and 
likeness,  there  is  an  original,  fundamental  correspon- 
dence   or    analogy   between    God    and    man.      This 


88  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

doubtless  is  what  is  intended  by  modern  writers 
when  they  speak  of  the  essential  humanity  of  God 
and  the  essential  divinity  of  man.  They  mean  that 
God  and  man  are  built  on  the  same  plan,  put 
together  on  the  same  pattern.  The  scale  differs, 
the  plan  is  the  same. 

More  :  not  only  is  the  doctrine  of  Moses  con- 
cerning the  creation  of  man  in  God's  image  the 
foundation  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  of  God,  making  it  possible  and  becom- 
ing ;  but  it  is  also  the  condition  on  which  man 
may  be  adopted  into  the  Divine  family  and  made 
"  partaker  of  the  Divine  nature."  Originally,  in  an 
incipient  state,  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  belonging 
to  the  same  family  or  genus  as  the  Divine  Three — 
we  are  made,  not  "  after  our  kind,"  but  in  a  mysteri- 
ous way  after  the  Divine  kind.  From  the  outset 
there  was  in  contemplation  the  "  becoming "  of 
man  like  unto  the  Divine  "  Us."  And  when  sin 
arrested  our  normal  development,  by  the  super- 
natural intervention  of  Divine  Grace  this  possibility 
was  restored  to  us.  We  may  again  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons  into  the  Divine  Family,  when 
Father  and  children  will  be  of  a  homogeneous 
nature  ;  we  may  be  born  again,  not  of  corruptible 
but  incorruptible  seed,  and  thereby  repossess  the 
Divine  affinities.  We,  who  are  originally  partakers 
of  human  nature,  are  capable  of  being  made  "  par- 
takers of  the  Divine  nature."  The  three  doctrines 
of  Incarnation,  Adoption,  and  Regeneration  are 
founded  on  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  the  creation  of 
man  in  the  Divine  image.  This  latter  it  is  that 
makes   the    former  possible.      So   closely  connected 


CREATION   AND   GEOLOGY  89 

are  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Bible  that, 
if  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  man's  origin  and  nature 
is  denied,  the  superstructure  of  Christian  doctrine 
at  once  topples  to  the  ground. 

The  infidel  taunt  that  Holy  Writ  depicts  human 
nature  in  colours  too  dark  possesses  no  truth. 
In  one  sense,  it  does  delineate  fallen  humanity  in 
language  strong  and  awful,  variegated  by  the  lurid- 
ness  of  hell-fire  ;  but  that  is  because  it  shows  it  in 
the  past  created  higher  than  philosophy  or  science, 
or  even  poetry,  ever  dreamed,  and  because  it 
exhibits  it  capable  of  restoration  in  the  future  to 
a  higher  altitude  than  ever  before.  The  Bible 
magnifies  human  nature,  and  reveals  to  us  the 
infinite  possibilities  therein  concealed.  Ask  ancient 
philosophy.  What  is  the  origin  of  man?  Greece 
answers,  He  grew  from  the  ground  like  mushrooms 
in  the  fields  of  Attica.  Egypt  replies,  He  developed 
from  the  fertilising  mud  of  the  Nile,  shone  upon 
by  the  kindling  rays  of  the  sun.  "According  to 
the  ideas  commonly  prevailing  among  the  peoples 
of  antiquity,  man  is  regarded  as  autochthonous,  or 
issued  from  the  earth  which  bears  him."^  Ask 
modern  science,  What  is  the  origin  of  man  ?  She 
answers.  He  has  unfolded  from  the  ape,  and  the 
ape  ultimately  from  the  primeval  slime  in  the 
bottom  of  the  pool.  Ask  Moses,  What  is  the  origin 
of  man  ?  And  he  answers  in  language  lofty  and 
clear,  "  God  created  man  in  His  own  image ;  in 
the  image  of  God  created  He  him."  The  sublimity 
of  the  answer  is  a  presumptive  evidence  of  its  truth, 
^  Lenormant,  Beghinmgs  of  History,  p.  47. 


CHAPTER    III 

CREATION   AND   ASTRONOMY 

EARLY  in  the  fifteenth  century  the  ecclesiastical 
f  authorities  put  themselves  in  opposition  to 
the  modern  science  of  astronomy.  Down  to  that 
time  theology  and  astronomy  were  like  twin  sisters, 
dwelling  together  in  peace.  But  in  consequence  of 
the  sudden  development  at  that  period  of  astronomic 
science,  the  theologians  were  left  behind.  The  Bible 
doubtless  contains  passages  which  popularly  describe 
the  earth  as  fixed  and  the  sun  as  revolving :  "  The 
sun  was  risen  upon  the  earth."  "  His  going  forth 
is  from  the  end  of  the  heaven,  and  his  circuit  unto 
the  ends  of  it."  "  The  sun  also  ariseth,  and  the 
sun  goeth  down,  and  hasteth  to  his  place  where 
he  arose."  Another  verse  which  did  much  militant 
service  at  that  time  was  the  following  :  "  The  world 
is  established,  it  cannot  be  moved."  "  The  world 
cannot  be  moved,"  said  the  Psalmist.  "  The  world 
cannot  move,"  said  the  theologians — a  very  different 
thing.  However  great  the  storms  beating  upon  it, 
however  furious  the  fire  raging  within  it,  the  earth  will 
not  totter  or  stagger,  says  the  Psalmist,  its  stability 
is  assured.  To  that  teaching  science  can  offer  no 
objection.     But    the   theologians,    mistaking    popular 

90 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY  QI 

language  for  scientific  statements,  marshalled  these 
verses  in  battle  array,  and  with  them  combated 
the  new  theory  that  the  sun,  not  the  earth,  is  the 
fixed  centre  of  the  solar  system. 

How  far  the  Roman  Church  still  adheres  to 
the  old  dogma  of  the  immobility  of  the  earth  I 
am  not  able  to  tell.  But  it  is  significant  that  as 
late  as  1823,  in  the  preface  to  a  new  edition  of 
Newton's  Principia,  the  two  learned  editors,  Le 
Sueur  and  Jacquier,  both  of  them  Jesuit  priests, 
felt  obliged  to  give  the  following  cautionary  notice  : 
"  Newton,  in  his  third  book,  adopts  the  hypothesis 
of  the  motion  of  the  earth.  We  could  not  explain 
his  propositions  without  making  the  same  hypothesis. 
Hence  we  are  compelled  to  assume  a  character 
different  from  our  own,  for  we  profess  obedience 
to  the  decrees  promulgated  by  the  Pope  against 
the  motion  of  the  earth."  But  be  the  position 
of  the  Roman  Church  what  it  may,  Protestant 
theologians  adopted,  as  usual,  the  new  Copernican 
theory  as  soon  as  its  truth  was  scientifically  estab- 
lished. 

It  was  not  the  theologians  only  who  were  left 
behind  by  the  rapid  strides  made  in  the  memor- 
able discoveries  of  Galileo,  Kepler,  and  Copernicus  ; 
but  the  compact  body  of  the  so-called  philosophers 
found  themselves  in  the  same  unhappy  predicament — 
a  truth  conveniently  forgotten  to  the  disparagement 
of  the  theologians.  In  the  philosophy  of  the  age 
the  earth  was  viewed  as  the  centre  of  the  solar 
system.  The  supposed  Mosaic  teaching  was  abun- 
dantly confirmed  by  the  Ptolemaic  theory,  of  which 
all    the   philosophers    from    time    immemorial   were 


92  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

devoted  adherents.  The  immovableness  of  the 
earth  was  a  leading  theme  in  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy  ;  and,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  Aristotle  was 
not  only  king,  but  tyrant,  over  men's  minds.  When 
Galileo  ventured  to  teach  the  motion  of  the  earth, 
the  ire  of  the  ecclesiastics  was  straightway  roused  ; 
but  behind  and  beneath  the  hostility  of  the 
theologians,  and  explaining  it,  was  the  bitter  antagon- 
ism of  the  philosophers,  whose  faith  in  Aristotle 
was  more  implicit  than  in  Moses.  Theology  has 
had  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  obloquy  connected 
with  the  persecution  of  the  above  astronomers  ; 
but  a  deeper  examination  of  the  subject  will  con- 
vince us  that  the  responsibility  should  be  divided 
between  theology  and  philosophy— the  Aristotelian 
philosophy  then  ascendant  in  Europe.  Philosophers 
never  tire  of  pouring  contempt  on  the  persecutors 
of  those  grand  and  noble  men  ;  but  who  were  the 
persecutors?  Not  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat 
more  than  those  who  sat  in  Aristotle's  chair. 
Theology  was  a  helpless  captive,  bound  hand  and 
foot  to  the  Aristotelian  philosophy.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  hold  the  theologians  guiltless  ;  but  let  the 
blame  be  justly  distributed. 

"  The  complaint  of  science  is  that  theology  has 
resisted  her  progress.  Ought  not  the  accusation 
to  be  shifted,  if  not  retorted  ?  Is  it  not  theology 
that  has  been  unfortunately  encumbered  with 
physical  science,  or  with  the  philosophemes  which 
stood  for  science  at  some  particular  period  ?  In- 
terpreters of  Scripture  have  allowed  the  prevailing 
theories  of  their  o\\  n  day  .so  to  colour  their  statement 
of   Bible    doctrine,   that    natural    discoverers   of    the 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY  93 

next  age  have  raised  the  cry,  '  The  Bible  with  its 
theology  stops  the  way '  : — the  fact  being  that  it 
was  not  the  Bible  at  all,  nor  even  theology,  which 
opposed  itself  to  their  discoveries,  but  only  the 
ghosts  of  defunct  philosophical  or  scientific  opinions, 
clothing  themselves  in  the  garments  of  religious 
thought."  ^ 

In  every  age,  the  foremost  to  admit  the  superiority 
of  the  Bible,  and  to  bow  down  in  humble  adoration 
to  the  great  God,  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
have  been  the  illustrious  astronomers.  What 
grander  and  more  inspiring  than  the  ever-memorable 
words  of  Kepler,  with  which  he  concludes  his  book 
on  the  Harmony  of  Worlds  ? — "  I  thank  Thee,  my 
Creator  and  Lord,  that  Thou  hast  given  me  this 
joy  in  Thy  creation,  this  delight  in  the  work  of 
Thy  hands.  I  have  shown  the  excellency  of  Thy 
work  unto  men,  so  far  as  my  finite  mind  was  able 
to  comprehend  Thine  infinity.  If  I  ever  said  aught 
unworthy  of  Thee,  or  aught  in  which  I  may  have 
sought  my  own  glory,  graciously  forgive  it."  Of 
our  own  Newton  it  is  also  recorded  that  he  never 
mentioned  the  name  of  God  without  reverently 
uncovering  his  head.  Real  greatness  is  never  dis- 
sociated from  true  reverence.  But  this  science  of 
astronomy,  so  calculated  by  the  boundless  visions 
it  discloses  to  humble  the  pride  of  man,  and  to 
excite  wonderment  and  praise,  is  converted,  by  men 
more  distinguished  for  acuteness  than  loftiness  of 
mind,  into  a  weapon  wlierewith  to  attack  the  Bible 
and  undermine  the  religion  founded  thereon. 

I.  The  first  class  of  objections  urged  against  the 
^  Laidlaw,  Doctrine  0/ Man,  pp.  7,  8. 


94  PRLMEVAL   REVELATION 

Mosaic  narrative  of  creation  are  based  on  a  mis- 
apprehension of  the  true  signification  of  words. 
Because  of  the  occurrence  of  the  word  "  firmament " 
in  the  English  translation,  much  ridicule  has  been 
poured  on  the  devoted  head  of  Moses,  especially 
by  the  mob-orators  of  popular  infidelity,  the  orators 
forgetting  that  Moses  neither  spoke  in  English  nor 
wrote  in  Latin.  Rakia^  the  word  used  by  Moses, 
is  one  of  the  most  appropriate  terms  possible.  The 
Authorised  Version  reads  "  firmament,"  but  the 
marginal  reading  is  "  expansion,"  which  more  nearly 
approximates  the  original.  The  verb  raka  signifies 
to  expand  by  beating,  whether  it  be  with  the  hand 
or  with  an  instrument.  Hence  the  word  lends 
itself  easily  to  descriptive  poetry  :  "  Hast  thou  then 
with  Him  spread — Jiannnered — out  the  sky,  which 
is  strong,  and  as  a  molten  looking-glass  ? "  (Job 
xxxvii.  1 8).  To  set  forth  the  appearance  of  the 
sky  Moses  employs  the  fittest  word  possible.  Though 
not  scientifically  accurate,  it  is  characterised  by 
poetic  truth.  Throw  yourselves  back  to  the  time 
of  your  childhood,  when  strange  stirrings  of  soul 
began  to  ruffle  the  surface  of  your  being,  and  did 
you  not  imagine  the  firmament  as  a  thin  plate  of 
molten  mirror,  curved  like  a  canopy  over  our  world  ? 
The  word  evidently  signifies  expansion,  tenuity. 
But  in  the  Septuagint  it  is  translated  arepecoiia,  and 
in  the  Vulgate  "  firmamentum,"  both  expressing 
solidity,  in  accordance  with  the  conceptions  prevailing 
in  those  times. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  Mosaic  term  docs  not 
perfectly  accord  with  scientific  truth,  a  sufficient 
answer  is  that  Moses  described  the  phenomenon  as 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMV  95 

it  appeared  to  the  seeing  eye.  The  same  objection 
might  be  raised  against  kindred  terms  in  every 
language.  When  the  Romans  spoke  of  "  coelum," 
did  they  intend  a  "  hollow "  or  curve  scooped  out 
of  solid  space  ?  When  the  Greeks  spoke  of  ovpav6<;, 
did  they  simply  mean  a  high  or  exalted  place, 
according  to  the  etymological  derivation  of  the  word  ? 
When  the  English  write  of  "  heaven,"  do  they  mean 
that  the  sky  was  heaved  up  by  mechanical  or  other 
forces  ?  When  the  Germans  speak  of  "  himmel," 
from  /leimel/i,  to  cover,  do  they  think  of  a  roof  to 
keep  out  the  wet  from  the  /leim  or  home  of  man? 
Technically  it  may  be  shown  that  each  of  these 
words  contains  an  error ;  practically  each  is  true, 
the  aptest  term  possible  to  set  forth  the  facts  as 
they  appear  to  the  poetic  eye ;  and  in  childhood, 
whether  of  the  individual  or  the  race,  every  eye  is 
poetic. 

Another  objection  is  founded  on  the  Mosaic  state- 
ment that  light  was  created  before  the  appearing  of 
the  sun,  light  being  produced  on  the  first  day,  whereas 
the  sun  and  moon  are  expressly  stated  to  have  been 
"  made "  on  the  fourth.  This  objection  has,  in  by- 
gone years,  been  urged  with  great  merriment  by 
infidel  scoffers  to  the  supposed  discomfiture  of  Moses. 
"  How  did  God  create  the  light  before  the  sun  ? " 
sceptically  queried  Voltaire.  In  the  well-known 
volume  Essays  and  Reviews,  this  argument  was  in- 
vested with  the  dignity  of  a  deliberate  philosophic 
statement.  In  the  then  state  of  scientific  knowledge, 
it  drove  the  orthodox  theologians  hard,  who  could 
only  attempt  a  refutation,  in  a  vague  way,  by  alleging 
that  God  on  the  first  day  created  light  in  a  state  of 


g6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

diffusion,  but  on  the  fourth  gathered  it  all  together, 
and  focussed  it  in  one  central  orb — a  good  refutation 
enough  if  proofs  were  forthcoming.  Since  then,  how- 
ever, science  itself  has  rallied  to  the  help  of  faith, 
and  demonstrated  the  existence  of  other  sources  of 
light  than  the  sun.  "  Thus,  at  last,"  writes  Professor 
Dana,  "  we  learn,  through  modern  scientific  research, 
that  the  appearance  of  light  on  the  first  day,  and 
of  the  sun  on  the  fourth — an  idea  foreign  to  man's 
unaided  conception — is  as  much  in  the  volume  of 
Nature  as  in  that  of  Sacred  Writ."  ''  The  scientific 
hypothesis/'  writes  Professor  Young,  "that  light  is 
supplied  by  the  emission  of  luminous  particles  has 
now  been  abandoned — of  physical  necessity  aban- 
doned ;  it  is  acknowledged  by  modern  philosophers 
to  be  erroneous,  and  that  there  is  no  emission  of  such 
particles  at  all  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  light  of 
day  is  the  result  of  undulations  of  a  subtile  fluid 
quite  distinct  from  the  sun  ;  and  but  for  the  presence 
of  this  fluid  there  would  be  no  light,  whether  the 
sun  existed  or  not."  So,  instead  of  the  light  being 
dependent  on  the  sun,  the  sun  is  dependent  on  the 
light ! 

Whatever  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  the  undulatory 
theory  of  light,  enough  at  all  events  has  been  estab- 
lished to  redeem  the  Mosaic  affirmation  of  the 
existence  of  light  before  the  sun  from  all  aspersions 
of  ridicule  or  foolhardiness.  The  crux  of  the  difficulty 
here  is  that,  whilst  Moses  knew,  as  well  as  every- 
body else,  that  the  light  now  flows  to  our  earth  from 
the  sun,  he  yet  deliberately  taught  the  existence  of 
light  millions  of  years  antecedent  to  the  appearance 
of  the  sun.     Was  not  that  unaccountably  strange  in 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY  97 

a  man  of  ordinary  common  sense,  which  at  least  he 
was,  his  most  rancorous  critics  being  judges?  Yes, 
unaccountable,  except  on  the  one  hypothesis  of  his 
inspiration  ;  and  if  he  begin  at  this  lofty  altitude, 
the  probability  is  that  he  will  maintain  the  same 
high  level  throughout.  What  used  to  be  a  laughing- 
stock to  rationalists  is  now  converted  by  science  itself 
into  a  cogent  proof  in  favour  of  the  supernatural 
origin  of  the  Mosaic  account. 

Another  disagreement,  pithily  put,  and  obviously 
endorsed,  by  Dr.  Dods'  is  this  :  "  Of  a  creation  of 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  subsequent  to  the  creation  of 
the  earth,  science  can  have  but  one  thing  to  say."  ^ 
And  that  one  thing,  of  course,  is  in  antagonism 
to  Moses.  But  who  teaches  the  creation  of  the 
stellar  worlds  in  the  order  set  down  by  Dr.  Dods? 
If  the  ripe  and  scholarly  judgment  of  the  great 
commentators  counts  for  anything,  not  Moses.  The 
only  writers  who  endeavour  to  rivet  this  signification 
on  him  are  the  rationalists  in  theology  and  science, 
who,  amid  a  multitude  of  divergent  views,  agree 
only  in  their  desire  to  explain  away  the  supernatural. 
Why  turn  the  ear  to  the  charming  of  rationalists, 
whilst  deaf  to  the  "  concord  of  sweet  sounds  "  emitted 
by  the  great  theologians  of  the  century  ?  Why 
side  on  minor  points  with  authors  whose  avowed 
principle  is  the  suppression  of  the  supernatural, 
against  the  weighty  judgments  of  commentators  like 
Delitzsch,  Lange,  and  Keil,  who  have,  with  micro- 
scopic minuteness,  examined  the  whole  subject  ? 

The  teaching  of  Moses  seems  perfectly  clear  and 
straightforward  :  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
1  Ge?ieszs,  p.  4 

7 


98  PRIMEVAT.   REVELATION 

heavens  and  the  earth."  All  the  worlds,  in  their 
constituent  materials,  were  ushered  into  existence  the 
same  time  ;  the  earth  and  sun  and  moon  and  stars 
were  all  created  in  the  beginning,  whether  in  one 
whirling  mass,  as  Laplace  taught,  or  as  separate 
entities,  the  narrative  does  not  say.  The  how  of 
creation  is  left  to  science,  the  zvJiat  and  the  wherefore 
belong  to  theology.  All  things  having  been  thus 
produced  in  a  weltering,  undigested  mass,  the  work 
of  differentiation  and  arrangement  began,  till  in  the 
fourth  day  the  process  of  development  is  sufficiently 
advanced  and  the  aerial  space  between  is  sufficiently 
cleared  of  clouds  and  mist,  for  the  celestial  luminaries 
to  shine  on  the  earth,  and  be  signs  to  men  by 
which  to  regulate  their  going  out  and  their  coming 
in.  The  sun,  like  the  earth  and  the  planets,  was  at 
first  one  chaotic  fluid  mass,  opaque,  non-luminous,  and 
probably  enveloped  in  darkness.  Parallel  with  the 
preparation  of  the  earth  to  receive  animal  and  human 
life  was  the  preparation  of  the  sun  and  moon  to 
be,  not  lights,  but  light-bearers,  as  the  original  word 
signifies,  till  on  the  fourth  day  they  appeared,  not 
only  in  a  cosmical,  but  in  an  intelligible,  useful 
relation  to  one  another.  It  is  possible  that  then 
light  was  placed  in  the  light-bearers,  becoming  visible 
on  the  earth,  and  thereby  regulating  seasons  and 
years  and  days.  Moses  does  not  say  they  were 
created  on  the  fourth  day,  only  made — ordained  finally 
to  the  performance  of  their  functions  in  their  relation 
to  this  world  and  its  inhabitants. 

II.  The  next  argument  against  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  Creation  is  based  on  the  comparative 
insignificance  of  our  earth. 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY  99 

Taking  a  larger  sweep,  and  commanding   deeper 
respect,  it  needs  to  be  examined  in  a  truly  reverent 
spirit.     Whereas  Moses  gives  a  whole  chapter  to  the 
earth,  he  only  gives  one  sentence  to  the  stars.     This, 
remark  unbelievers,  gives  the  earth  more  importance 
in  the  Scriptures  than  belongs  to  it  in  the  universe  ; 
and   in  the  volume  of  Revelation    the   earth  should 
occupy  the  same  relative  significance  as   it  does  in 
the  volume  of  Nature.     In  the   two   books,   by  the 
same  Author,  the  emphasis  should  fall  in  the  same 
place.     To  this  argument  new  momentum  was  im- 
parted by  the  wonderful  discoveries  which  necessarily 
followed  the  invention  of  the  telescope.     The  whole 
expanse  of  limitless  space  was  proved  to  be  studded 
with    millions   of    stars,   each    immeasurably    larger 
than    our  poor  earth.     Compared  to  the  vastness  of 
creation,  our  planet  is  only  as  a  leaf  in  the  primeval 
forest,  a  grain  of  sand  among  the  countless  myriads 
on  the  seashore.     Is  it  likely,  then,  that  the  Divine 
Being,    who   created    all,  and  whose  relation   to  the 
countless  worlds  of  the  far-off  Milky  Way  is  as  close 
and  intimate  as  to  our  toy-planet — is   it   likely  that 
He  would  give  so  much  prominence  to  the  least  in 
the   realm    of  nature,    as    to   make    it   the  centre  of 
His  eternal   thoughts,   and  the   scene    of  the   tragic 
revelation  of  Himself  in  His  Son  ?     Is  it  reasonable 
to   conceive    that   the    Almighty    would   concentrate 
His  thought  and  affection  on  this  speck  of  a  world, 
this  infinitesimal  dot  in  the  immensity  of  space,  as 
Moses  leads  us   to  expect,  and  the  New  Testament 
leads  us  to  believe  ?     Why  should   He,  seeing  He  is 
Creator  of  all  worlds  alike,  and  is  as  closely  related 
to  the  one  as  to  the  other  ? 


100  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Tlic  whole  argument,  if  argument  it  may  be  called, 
proceeds  on  a  false  principle,  a  wrong  view  of  the 
earth,  of  man,  and  of  God. 

First,  it  implies  an  unsatisfactory  view  of  the  earth. 
Indeed,  modern  astronomy  here  comes  to  the  aid 
of  faith,  for  it  inclines  more  and  more  to  the  opinion 
that  our  earth  is  really  the  absolute  centre  of  the 
universe,  probably  the  only  world  which  is  now  or 
has  ever  been  inhabited.  So  far  as  science  can  judge, 
the  other  worlds  are  in  the  process  of  being  made, 
not  "  finished,"  as  Moses  declares  our  earth  to  be, 
and  therefore  not  yet  inhabited.  In  development 
our  world  is  in  advance  of  all  others,  the  only  one 
now  fit  for  occupancy  by  physically  organised  beings. 
Of  course,  I  believe  in  spiritual  existences  called 
angels,  but  spiritual  beings  do  not  require  material 
abodes.  If,  then,  our  world  be  the  only  one  hitherto 
peopled,  the  Mosaic  view  of  the  world  as  "geo- 
centric "  harmonises  with  the  deepest  truth  of  crea- 
tion. Great  names  can,  I  am  aware,  be  adduced 
as  firm  believers  that  other  worlds  than  ours  are 
inhabited.  That  intelligent  creatures  occupy  the 
stars  was  a  favourite  hypothesis  of  Kant,  in  defence 
of  which  he  was  willing  to  risk  much  ;  but  evidence 
he  had  none,  and  that  evidence  is  still  lacking. 
According  to  Professor  Ball,  than  whom  a  higher 
authority  on  astronomy  our  country  does  not  boast, 
only  Mars  possesses  the  conditions  necessary  to  life, 
and  even  of  Mars  he  entertains  doubts.^ 

The  assertion  that  it  is  incredible  that  God  should 
have    created    numberless    worlds,    and    then    leave 
them    unoccupied,    mere    desolate    wastes    in    infinite 
^  Story  of  the  Heavens,  p.  190. 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY 


roi 


space,  is  more  rhetorical  than  scientific,  more  im- 
posing to  the  imagination  than  convincing  to  reason. 
The  force  of  this  astronomical  appeal  to  the  imagi- 
nation was  broken  by  Whewell,  when  he  confronted 
it  with  the  well-established  facts  of  geology  that 
millions  of  years  were  allowed  to  pass  before  this 
world  was  tenanted,  the  illimitable  in  unpopulated 
time  neutralising  the  force  of  the  argument  from 
the  illimitable  in  unpopulated  space.  And,  as 
already  intimated,  so  far  as  science  goes,  it  rather 
inclines  to  the  conclusion  that  the  other  worlds 
of  our  solar  system,  at  least,  have  not  yet  reached 
that  stage  in  their  development  which  would  make 
life  on  them  possible  or  tolerable. 

Second,  this  reasoning,  even  if  it  be  true,  suffices 
not    to   still   all    the   questionings   of  the   soul  ;  our 
inquiry  must  be  further  pursued.     Mind  is  of  greater 
moment  than    matter  ;  and  here,    perhaps,    the   true 
solution    is    to    be    found.      Though    physically    not 
measuring   two    yards    long,    man,   in    virtue   of   his 
mind,  is  of  more  importance  than  a  whole  universe 
of  dead  matter.     Quality  here  overbalances  quantity  ; 
or,  rather,  there  is  no  balance  at  all— no  conceivable 
comparison    between    greatness    and    size,    between 
mind    and    matter,    between     ethics     and     physics, 
between  will  and    avoirdupois  weight.     "Man,"  says 
Pascal,    "is   a    feeble   reed,  trembling   in    the    midst 
of  creation  ;  but  then   he   is   endowed  with  thought. 
It  does  not  need  the  universe  to  arm  for  his  destruc- 
tion.    A  breath  of  wind,  a  drop  of  water,  will  suffice 
to    kill   him.     But   though  the  universe  were  to  fall 
on    man    and    crush    him,    he   would   be    greater   in 
his  death  than  the   universe   in   its   victory  ;    for  he 


102  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

would  be  conscious  of  his  defeat,  and  it  would  not 
be  conscious  of  its  triumph."  Human  intelligence 
it  is  that  gives  dignity  to  the  earth,  and  lends 
weight  to  the  "  geocentric "  doctrine  of  Moses  and 
the  Bible.  It  is  not  on  the  littleness  of  the  earth, 
but  on  the  greatness  of  man,  that  the  Bible  enlarges 
with  never-tiring  reiteration.  Does  not  the  suppo- 
sition underlie  the  whole  fabric  of  Divine  revelation 
that  man  is  potentially  the  grandest  creature  God 
has  formed  ?  We  are  accustomed  to  hear  the 
angels  pourtrayed  as  nobler  and  greater  than  he. 
In  certain  aspects  such  descriptions  are  true  ;  but 
there  is  another  and  a  more  permanent  sense  in 
which  man  is  greater  and  nobler  than  they. 

At  his  start  man  is  lower  ;  but  in  the  course  of 
his  development  he  passes  the  angel,  and  achieves 
a  height  beyond  the  angel's  reach.  Man  has  folded 
in  his  nature  possibilities  of  growth  beyond  the 
angelic  nature.  That  God  created  man  in  His 
image,  after  His  likeness,  is  the  Mosaic  teaching— an 
affirmation  nowhere  made  of  any  other  intelligence. 
The  angel  is,  of  course,  a  rational  being ;  but  the 
creation  of  man  involved  certain  peculiar  characteristics 
which  bring  him  nearer  God,  qualifying  him  to  be 
considered,  in  a  distinctive  sense,  the  offspring  of 
God.  This  consideration  breaks  the  force  of  the 
argument  from  the  magnitude  of  the  visible  universe. 
Under  the  shelter  of  its  wings  the  Psalmist  found 
relief:  "When  I  consider  the  heavens,  the  work 
of  Thy  fingers ;  the  moon  and  the  stars,  which 
Thou  hast  ordained ;  what  is  man  that  Thou  art 
mindful  of  him  ?  and  the  son  of  man  that  Thou 
visitest   him?"       In    these   verses    he   compares    the 


CREATION    AND   ASTRONOMY  103 

physical  universe  with  physical  man,  and  the  over- 
whelming disproportion  makes  his  faith  stagger. 
Where  does  he  find  relief?  In  the  contemplation 
of  man  as  a  moral  intelligence.  "  Thou  hast  made 
him  for  a  little  while  lower  than  the  angels"— but 
only  for  a  little  while,  for  in  God's  plan  concerning 
him  he  is  destined  to  enjoy  honour  and  glory  beyond 
seraphim  and  cherubim.  "  Thou  hast  put  all  things 
under  his  feet,"  and  if  all  things,  then  the  angels 
are  in  subjection  to  him.  (Ps.  viii.  compared  with 
Heb.  ii.  8,  9.) 

That  the  Mosaic  view  of  the  importance  of  this 
world  and  of  man,  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
is  compatible  with  the  dignity  conferred  on  them 
in  the  New  Testament,  by  the  incarnation  of  God, 
must  be  patent  to  all.  The  right  keynote  is  struck, 
and  that  of  itself  is  surprising.  That  Moses  should 
so  describe  the  earth  as  to  prepare  the  mind 
naturally  to  accept  it  as  the  suitable  platform  for 
God  to  be  made  manifest  on  it  in  the  flesh  is 
in  itself  calculated  to  excite  wonderment.  How 
came  about  this  unexpected  harmony  between  the 
beginning  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  beginning 
of  the  New  ?  between  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  Creation 
and  the  Johannine  doctrine  of  Incarnation  ?  Apart 
from  supernatural  interposition,  no  adequate  expla- 
nation is  forthcoming. 

Third,  the  argument,  founded  on  the  physical 
insignificance  of  the  earth,  implies  wrong  views  of 
God,  picturing  Him  as  an  Oriental  monarch,  invested 
with  infinite  physical  attributes,  whilst  destitute  of 
moral  character.  The  Bible,  however,  delineates 
God,  not  simply  concerned  about  the  vast  and  bulky, 


104  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

but  as  equally  interested  in  the  little  and  lowly, 
decorating  the  grass  and  watching  the  sparrows. 
Compatible  with  this  Scriptural  teaching,  whilst  the 
invention  of  the  telescope  led  to  an  enlargement  of 
our  knowledge  concerning  suns  and  constellations, 
the  simultaneous  invention  of  the  microscope  opened 
up  to  our  astonished  vision  a  new  world  in  the  dust 
under  our  feet.  The  discovery  of  the  infinitely 
great  encounters  the  discovery  of  the  infinitely 
little  ;  and,  by  counterbalance,  they  keep  the  mind 
in  due  equipoise.  God  is  as  watchful  of  the 
animalculse  in  a  drop  of  water  as  He  is  careful  of 
the  galaxies  in  the  ocean  of  space. 

More  :  it  is  a  principle  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
"  that  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first  last."  "  God 
chooseth  the  foolish  to  confound  the  wise,  the  weak 
things  to  confound  the  things  which  are  mighty,  and 
base  things,  and  things  which  are  despised,  to  bring 
to  nought  things  that  are  :  that  no  flesh  should  glory 
in  His  presence."  "  And  thou,  Bethlehem,  in  the 
land  of  Juda,  art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  of 
Juda  ;  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  a  governor,  that  shall 
rule  My  people  Israel."  Is  it  not  in  consonance  with 
these  principles  of  the  Divine  procedure  to  elect  our 
earth,  one  of  the  smallest  among  the  thousands  of 
creation,  the  Bethlehem  of  the  universe,  to  be  the 
scene  of  the  grandest  revelations  of  Himself  ?  History 
conveys  to  us  the  lesson  that  greatness  and  size  seldom 
go  together.  China  is  a  large  country  measured  by 
superficial  acreage,  and  the  number  of  its  people 
equals  the  population  of  Europe  ;  yet  she  cannot 
be  considered  truly  great — so  far  she  has  left  no  deep 
mark  on  the  religion,  the  intellect,  or  the  commerce 


CREATION   AND  ASTRONOMY  105 

of  the  world.     Think   again  of   Assyria,    a    country 
measuring  its  thousands  of  miles  square,  and  reckon- 
ing its  soldiers  and  camels  by  hundreds  of  thousands  ; 
but  what  addition  did  she  make  to  the  mental  and 
moral  wealth  of  the  globe  ?     On  the  other  hand,  a 
country    may    be    small,    estimated    by   its    surface 
mileage,  and  its  inhabitants  few  compared  with  other 
nations,    and    yet    reach    the    sublimest    heights    in 
knowledge   and    virtue.       Palestine   was    no    greater 
than   Wales  in   surface  dimensions,   but    it   achieved 
greatness  which  for  ever  eclipses  countries  a  hundred 
times   its  size.     The    Hebrew   race,  notwithstanding 
its    arithmetical    insignificance,    left  its  mark  deeper 
on  the  religion  and  morality  of  the  world  than  any 
other  people.     Greece  also,  judged  by  its  geographi- 
cal extent,  was  only  one  of  the  "small  dust  of  the 
balance,"  and    Athens   was    not   larger   than    one  of 
our   Welsh   towns.      But   what    country    grew    more 
heroic    men  ?      What    city   reared    men    of    greater 
eminence  in  poetry,  philosophy,  eloquence,  and  art  ? 
Without  contradiction,   size   is   not   greatness.     And 
if,   in  the  Divine  scheme  of  the  universe,  our  earth 
holds  a  position  unique    in    its  moral   grandeur  out 
of  proportion  to  its  material  measurement,  it  is  only 
in  unison  with  the  general  course  of  history. 

Besides,  is  it  not  probable  that  our  world  alone 
fell  from  its  allegiance  to  the  Creator,  and  violated 
the  moral  order  of  the  universe  ?  If  that  be  the 
case,  it  alone  is  a  sufficient  clue  to  the  difficulty 
that  God  chose  to  become  incarnate  in  our  world, 
and  not  in  one  of  the  fixed  stars  a  thousand  times 
its  size.  Christian  instinct,  rather  than  Christian 
exegesis,   has    always    persisted   in    interpreting    the 


I06  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Parable  of  the  Lost  Sheep  in  that  light.  "  What 
man  of  you,  having  an  hundred  sheep,  if  he  lose  one 
of  them,  doth  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the 
wilderness,  and  go  after  that  which  is  lost,  until  he 
find  it  ?  And  when  he  hath  found  it,  he  layeth  it 
on  his  shoulder  rejoicing ;  and  when  he  cometh 
home,  he  calleth  together  his  friends  and  neighbours, 
saying  unto  them.  Rejoice  with  me,  for  I  have 
found  my  sheep  which  was  lost"  (Luke  xv.  4-6).  If, 
then,  the  need  for  redemption  was  confined  to  this 
one  lost  world,  the  necessity  for  Incarnation  and 
Sacrifice  \\ould  be  likewise  limited  thereto. 

Or,  to  present  the  same  truth  in  another  way,  if 
rebellion  had  broken  out  only  in  this  province  of 
the  creation,  the  call  for  Divine  intervention  to 
stamp  out  the  insurrection  would  also  be  restricted  to 
it.  "  If,  on  the  one  hand,"  Dr.  Chalmers  says,  ''  God 
be  jealous  of  His  honour,  and,  on  the  other,  there 
be  proud  and  exalted  spirits,  who  scowl  defiance  at 
Him  and  at  His  monarchy,  then  let  the  material 
prize  of  victory  be  insignificant  as  it  may,  it  is  the 
victory  in  itself  which  upholds  the  impulse  of  the 
keen  and  stimulated  rivalry.  If,  by  the  sagacity  of 
one  infernal  mind,  a  single  planet  has  been  seduced 
from  its  allegiance,  and  brought  under  the  ascend- 
ency of  him  who,  in  the  Scriptures,  is  called  the 
god  of  this  world  ;  and  if  the  errand  on  which  the 
Redeemer  came  was  to  destroy  the  w^orks  of  the 
devil,  then  let  this  planet  have  all  the  littleness  which 
astronomy  has  assigned  to  it — call  it  what  it  is,  one 
of  the  smaller  islets  which  float  on  the  ocean  of 
immensity — it  has  become  the  theatre  of  such  a 
competition  as  may  have  all  the  desires  and  all  the 


Ck£ATlON    AND   ASTRONOMY  10/ 

energies  of  a  divided  universe  embarked  upon  it. 
It  involves  in  it  other  objects  than  the  single  re- 
covery of  our  species.  It  decides  higher  questions 
— it  stands  linked  with  the  supremacy  of  God.  .  .  . 
To  an  infidel  ear,  all  this  may  carry  the  sound  of 
something  wild  and  visionary  along  w^ith  it  ;  but, 
though  only  known  through  the  medium  of  revela- 
tion, after  it  is  known,  who  can  fail  to  recognise 
its  harmony  with  the  great  lineaments  of  human 
experience  ?  Who  does  not  recognise  in  these  facts 
much  that  goes  to  explain  why  our  planet  has 
taken  so  conspicuous  a  position  in  the  foreground 
of  history  ?  " ' 

This  prominence  given  our  world  in  the  dramas 
of  Creation  and  Redemption  is  not  for  our  sakes 
only,  but  for  the  sake  of  all  intelligences,  of  every 
rank  and  degree,  throughout  the  whole  universe ; 
"  that,  through  the  Church,  might  be  known,  to  the 
principalities  and  powers,  the  manifold  wisdom  of 
God."  Thus,  again,  we  revert  to  the  statement  that 
our  world  is,  and  will  for  ever  be,  the  centre  of 
interest  to  the  intelligent  universe.  Here  are  solved 
the  deepest  problems  of  mind  and  morality.  We 
are,  therefore,  prepared  for  the  frequent  intimations 
scattered  throughout  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  Incarnate  God  will  return  in  glory  to  the 
scene  of  His  humiliation  and  death,  and  reign  here 
in  majesty  world  without  end,  making  it  the 
veritable  centre  of  glory  and  influence ;  thereby 
realising  the  seer's  vision  of  a  throne  with  a  Lamb 
upon  it,  as  if  He  had  been  slain,  compassed  about 
in  close  proximity  by  the  redeemed  of  men,  and 
^  Astronomical  Discourses,  vi. 


I08  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

at  farther  distances  by  other  moral  intelligences. 
The  end  comports  with  the  beginning.  How  came 
Moses  to  give  such  a  theory  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  of  man  as  to  be  universally  felt  to  be 
the  appropriate  commencement  to  a  history  which 
has  so  glorious  a  termination,  unless  it  were  true? 
And  if  true,  how  came  he  to  discover  it  at  so  early 
a  period?  It  was  not  the  discovery  of  Moses,  but 
the  revelation  of  God,  either  to  him  or  to  the  first 
fathers  of  the  race. 


CHAPTER    IV 

CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION 

IN  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  three  different 
words  are  employed  by  Moses  to  set  forth  the 
creative  operations  of  God — "  create,"  "  make," 
"  form "  {para,  asa,  yatsar).  Of  these  the  word 
"  create  "  is  the  strongest,  denoting  the  supernatural 
exertion  of  Divine  Power  without  the  agency  of 
secondary  causes.  God  is  the  cause,  the  only 
adequate  cause.  The  other  words  are  of  weaker 
signification,  and  denote  the  working  of  God,  the 
great  Plrst  Cause,  along  the  line  of  secondary  causes. 
In  looking  over  this  chapter  we  are  particularly 
struck  with  the  judicious  use  made  of  these  words. 
The  word  "  create  "  is  used  in  three  connections,  and 
where  we  find  it  the  other  words  would  apparently 
be  inappropriate.  The  first  time  is  in  the  first  verse  : 
*'  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth."  Here  it  means  the  origination  of  matter 
out  of  nothing.  In  this  first  act  God  was  the  alone 
cause,  to  the  total  exclusion  of  all  secondary  causes, 
for  these  latter  were  not  yet  in  existence.  The 
second  time  is  in  ver.  21  :  "And  God  created  great 
whales,  and  every  living  creature  that  moveth,  which 
the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly,  after  their  kind, 

109 


no  IMUMEVAL   REVELATION 

and  every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind."  Here  it  is 
applied  to  the  first  production  of  animal  life.  In 
this  work  also  God  was  the  only  adequate  cause. 
Secondary  causes  may  have  been  utilised  to  the 
extent  to  which  they  would  go  ;  but  there  was  a 
point  beyond  which  their  influence  could  not  reach 
— they  could  not  by  any  possibility  of  combination 
produce  life.  "  Spontaneous  generation  "  is  an  ex- 
ploded doctrine.  The  third  time  the  word  "  create  " 
is  used  is  in  ver.  27  :  "  So  God  created  man  in  His 
own  image  ;  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him." 
Here  it  signifies  the  generation  of  mind.  Secondary 
causes  were  already  at  work  in  all  the  creation,  the 
laws  of  nature  in  full  swing  ;  but  there  was  a  limit 
to  their  influence,  beyond  which  they  could  not 
travel — they  could  not  produce  mind. 

Here  then  we  find  the  writer  of  Genesis  using  the 
word  which  denotes  the  direct,  immediate,  super- 
natural operation  of  God  only  three  times,  in  the 
creation  of  matter,  the  origination  of  life,  and  the 
production  of  mind — the  three  places  where  the  line 
of  continuity  in  modern  evolutionary  science  breaks, 
the  three  places  where  the  exponents  of  Materialism 
cannot  find  the  connecting  links.  Just  there,  where 
the  links  are  missing,  the  author  of  Genesis  puts  God. 
Is  not  this  coincidence  strange  ?  Is  it  designed  or 
undesigned  ?  Either  way  it  excites  surprise.  That 
Moses  had  the  remotest  conception  of  the  modern 
theory  of  evolution  is,  of  course,  absurd.  How  then 
account  for  this  singular  correspondence  ?  Must  we 
not  suppose  a  Mind,  behind  the  writer's,  controlling 
the  latter,  and  moulding  unconsciously  from  within 
his  thoughts  into  suitable  expressions  ?     This  three- 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  III 

fold   recurrence  of  the  word  "  create "  will  form  the 
basis  of  my  present  remarks. 

I.  TJie  Creation  of  Matter.— The  word  "create" 
(dara)  is  of  prime  importance,  being  one  of  the  key- 
words of  Biblical  theology.  What  then  is  its  precise 
signification  ?  Etymologically  it  is  believed  by  the 
best  scholarship  to  mean  "  cut,"  "  carve,"  "  polish." 
But,  as  with  all  historic  words,  its  precise  import  is 
determined,  not  by  derivation,  but  by  usage  and 
the  general  tenor  of  the  context.  This  word  "  bara," 
in  Kal,  is  strictly  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being, 
never  to  men  ;  and  to  Him,  not  in  His  natural,  but 
supernatural,  operations.  "  The  word  denotes,"  says 
Professor  Tayler  Lewis,  "  as  its  most  usual  sense,  a 
Divine,  supernatural  act,  such  as  man  or  nature  of 
itself  could  not  do.  .  .  .  It  is  the  Divine,  supernatural 
making  of  something  new,  and  which  did  not 
exist  before."  "  Bara  is  never  used  except  of  a 
Divine  act,"  writes  Bishop  Perowne,  himself  an 
authority  of  no  mean  order  ;  "  and  it  is  quite  certain 
that  the  writer  intends  to  convey  the  impression  of 
a  creation  called  into  existence  out  of  nothing  by 
the  voice  and  will  of  God."  "  In  the  trite  dispute 
of  interpreters  and  theologians,"  writes  Gesenius,^ 
"  concerning  creation  out  of  nothing,  some  appeal 
to  the  word  under  consideration  [dara'],  as  if  it 
might  be  gathered  from  its  very  etymology  and 
proper  signification  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
teaches  not  a  creation  from  nothing,  but  a  conforma- 
tion of  matter  eternally  existing.  On  the  contrary, 
from  the  instances  we  have  given,  it  will  abundantly 
appear  that  the  actual  use  of  this  word  in  Kal 
^   Thesaur.  Heb,,  p.  236. 


112  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

is  altogether  different  from  its  primary  signification, 
and  that  it  is  rather  employed  with  respect  to  the 
new  production  of  a  thing  (see  Gen.  ii.  3)  than 
to  the  conformation  and  elaboration  of  material. 
That  the  opening  clause  of  Genesis  sets  forth  the 
world  as  first  created  out  of  nothing,  and  in  a  rude 
and  undigestible  state,  while  the  remainder  of  the 
first  chapter  exhibits  the  elaboration  of  the  recently 
created  mass,  the  connection  of  the  whole  paragraph 
renders  entirely  plain." 

Let  it  not,  however,  be  supposed  that  the  Mosaic 
doctrine  of  creation  out  of  nothing  militates  against 
the  philosophical  maxim.  Out  of  nothing  nothing 
can  come  {Ex  iiiJiilo  niJiil  fit).  This  dictum, 
properly  interpreted,  is  only  an  affirmation  in  a 
proverbial  form  of  the  principle  of  causality,  that 
without  cause  there  can  issue  no  effect.  Nothing 
has  power  to  originate  nothing.  Nothing  can  do 
nothing.  And  if,  prior  to  the  beginning,  nothing 
existed,  the  universe  would  have  been  a  sheer 
impossibility.  But,  according  to  Moses,  God  existed, 
omnipotent,  omnipresent,  omniscient  ;  He  is  an 
adequate  cause — He,  out  of  nothing,  created  the 
worlds.  Whereas  the  heathen  gods  are  represented 
as  working  with  fuss  and  strain,  the  God  of  the 
Pentateuch  "  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth " 
without  any  effort  or  the  slightest  tax  on  His 
strength.  As  the  verb  in  Kal  denotes,  He  per- 
formed the  creative  work  with  ease. 

This  truth,  that  the  act  of  creation  implies  not 
a  new  collocation  or  reconstruction  of  matter,  but 
its  absolute  origination,  may  appear  to  us  trite  and 
commonplace.       But    who     made    it    the    common 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  I  13 

heritage  of  Christian  nations  ?  When  it  was  first  pro- 
claimed, it  was  novel,  startling,  revolutionary.  None 
of  the  sublimest  thinkers  of  antiquity,  outside  the 
magic  circle  of  Revelation,  ever  conceived  it.  Modern 
Materialism,  as  represented  by  Tyndall,  Huxley, 
and  Haeckel,  affirms  the  eternity  of  matter.  Ancient 
Idealism,  as  embodied  in  Plato,  who  combined  in 
himself  the  gorgeous  splendour  of  the  poet  with 
the  keen  penetration  of  the  philosopher,  made  the 
same  affirmation.  Thus  in  their  confession  of  faith 
modern  Materialism  and  ancient  Idealism  have  one 
article  in  common — the  self-existence,  and  therefore 
the  eternity  of  matter.  To  Plato  God  was  only 
the  Architect  of  the  universe,  having  the  rough 
material  thereof  ready-made  to  His  hands ;  only 
the  Arranger  of  the  unshaped  hyle  (v\v  d/jLop(f>o<;), 
the  hyle  itself  being  the  dark  underground  of  the 
world. 

Moses,  however,  with  eyes  keener  and  pinions 
stronger,  penetrates  farther,  and  is,  so  far  as  history 
testifies,  the  author  of  the  renowned  dogma  of 
absolute  creation.  How  came  Moses  to  give  to 
thoughts,  which  "  eye  had  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard, 
nor  had  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive," 
such  dignified  utterance  ?  How  came  he  to  soar 
so  high,  to  fly  so  far  ?  To  me  there  is  but  one 
answer — the  Divine  Wind  was  blowing  under  his 
pinions,  carrying  him  beyond  the  region  where 
created  zephyrs  blow.  The  Divine  Afflatus  was 
filling  his  soul,  conveying  him  beyond  the  farthest 
boundaries  of  mere  human  genius.  Deny  his  inspira- 
tion, and  his  writings  become  the  greatest  puzzle 
of  literature.      Deny,    with    some    modern    scientific 

8 


114  PRIMEVAL   RF.VET.ATION 

infidels,  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  the 
genesis  of  matter,  the  problem  still  confronts  you, 
How  to  account  for  the  genesis  of  the  doctrine? 

That  the  origin  of  matter  is  a  subject  lying  out- 
side the  province  of  human  science  has  just  been 
intimated.  The  act  of  creation  took  place  but  once, 
has  not  been  repeated,  and  is  therefore  beyond  the 
reach  of  observation  and  experiment.  The  postulate 
of  Science,  the  assumption  with  which  she  begins 
her  researches,  is  not  the  creation,  but  the  existence, 
of  matter.  Accordingly  Science  may  tell  of  matter 
since  the  beginning  ;  she  has  not  a  syllable  to  say 
of  it  in  the  beginning.  "  The  idea  of  creation  belongs 
to  religion,  and  not  to  natural  science.  The  latter 
may,  indeed,  give  us  information  concerning  its 
external  history  ;  but  it  is  not  science,  but  religion, 
which  must  teach  us  the  fact  that  God  created  the 
world.  Of  this  fact  Science  from  her  own  resources 
is  able  to  tell  us  nothing.  For,  however  far  she  may 
travel  backwards,  and  pursue  her  investigations  of 
the  origin  of  all  things,  she  is  at  last  arrested  by 
matter,  by  life,  and  by  law.  Whence  this  matter, 
the  life  that  animates,  the  law  that  governs,  it  ? 
Science  is  utterly  unable  to  inform  us.  For  she 
always  presupposes  the  existence  of  matter,  and 
all  her  labours  begin  therefrom.  The  question  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  matter,  leaving  the  region  of 
sensible  reality,  passes  into  that  of  speculation  or 
of  faith.  At  this  point,  then,  natural  science  ceases 
to  be  natural  science,  and  becomes  cither  philosophy 
or  religion."  ^  Consequently,  in  the  presence  of  this 
problem,  Science  is  dumb.  Dumb,  did  I  say  ?  Far 
'  Luthardt,  Fundamental  Truths^  pp.  72,  ^;i^. 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  II5 

from  observing  silence  on  a  question  concerning 
which  in  the  nature  of  things  she  is  not  competent 
to  pronounce  judgment,  she  makes  here  more  din 
and  clamour  than  usual.  The  less  she  knows  the 
louder  she  asserts.  What  Tyndall,  Huxley,  and 
Spencer  have  to  say  touching  the  doctrine  of  origins 
are  not  scientific  verities,  but  metaphysical  hypotheses, 
and  their  dissertations  should  be  so  considered. 
They  are  not  verified  demonstrations,  but  daring 
speculations,  the  brilliant  dreams  of  able  men,  bred 
from  despair  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  solution, 
but  dreams  nevertheless.  It  may  be  objected  that 
neither  can  the  doctrine  of  creation  as  promulgated 
by  Moses  be  scientifically  verified,  that  it  also  is 
a  dream.  Assuredly,  yes  ;  but  compare  the  dreams  ! 
The  dreams  of  materialists,  ancient  and  modern, 
are  inconsistent,  illogical,  self-contradictory,  explain- 
ing nothing,  leading  nowhither,  and  are  unutterably 
depressing.  But  the  dream  of  Moses  is  simple, 
harmonious,  sublime,  elevating,  inspiring,  explains 
the  universe,  and  turns  the  key  in  the  lock  of  creation. 
The  conviction  is  secretly  engendered  that  the  dream 
and  the  facts  correspond.  Some  dreams  are  truly 
Divine ! 

"  The  aim  and  effort  of  science,"  declares  Tyndall, 
"is  to  explain  the  unknown  in  the  terms  of  the 
known."  ^  Doubtless  a  most  worthy  aim.  "  The 
whole  process  of  evolution,"  again  proclaims  this 
eloquent  child  of  Science,  "is  the  manifestation  of 
a  Power  absolutely  inscrutable  to  the  intellect  of 
man " ;  "  it  is  by  the  operation  of  an  insoluble 
mystery  that  life  on  earth  is  evolved."  "  A  Power 
^  Fragments  of  Science,  vol.  ii.,  p.  356. 


Il6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

absolutely  inscrutable ! "  "A  mystery,"  that  is  not 
only  unsolved,  but  "insoluble"!  Is  not  this  the 
language  of  despair  ?  Is  not  this  impossibility  of 
knowledge  depressing  to  body  and  mind?  Cannot 
Science  explain  the  Unknown  in  the  terms  of  the 
known  ?  Has  Science,  too,  swollen  with  pride  and 
vainglory,  to  put  her  finger  on  her  lip  in  presence  of 
the  problem  of  the  origin  of  things  ?  All  honour  to 
this  illustrious  child  of  hers  for  the  courage  to  make 
the  honest,  frank,  though  humiliating  confession. 
That  is  what  theologians  have  consistently  main- 
tained all  along,  that  the  doctrine  of  origins  belongs, 
not  to  science,  but  to  religion.  "  Through  faith  we 
understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word 
of  God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not  made 
of  things  which  do  appear  "  (Heb.  xi.  3).     "  In  the 

beginning ,"    says     Science.      Its    votaries    may 

exercise  their  ingenuity  in  inventing  for  the  blank 
a  name ;  they  may  call  it  a  ''  Powder  absolutely 
inscrutable,"  "  a  mystery  that  is  insoluble " ;  but 
the  appellation  only  emphasises  the  ignorance.  Take 
Moses'  solution  of  the  same  problem  :  "  In  the 
beginning  God  !  "  Suddenly  athwart  the  millenniums 
there  shoots  a  stream  of  white  light.  But  God  also 
is  a  mystery,  you  say.  Yes  ;  a  mystery  of  light,  not 
a  mystery  of  darkness  ;  and  if  we  only  give  Moses 
time,  he  will  tell  us  who  and  what  this  God  is. 
Though  unknown.  He  is  not  unknowable  ;  though 
mysterious,  He  is  not  insoluble.  Though  no  man 
can  find  Him  out  to  perfection,  yet  every  man  can 
know  Him  as  his  God  and  Father  in  Jesus  Christ. 
"  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth."      "  He   spoke,   and    it   was   done ;    He   com- 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  II7 

manded,  and  it  stood  fast."  ''  He  called  the  stars  by 
name,"  and  out  they  trooped,  a  white  obedient  flock. 
Nature  is  based  on  the  supernatural. 

II.  TJie  Creation  of  Life, — One  characteristic 
feature  of  this  chapter  strikes  us  at  once  :  that  the  six 
creation  days  are  divided  into  two  threes — the  first 
three  giving  an  account  of  inorganic,  the  second 
three  of  organic,  nature.  But  the  last  work  of  the 
first  three  seems  to  stretch  out  and  up,  to  bridge  as 
nearly  as  possible  the  chasm  between  the  two  cycles. 
They  may  be  presented  to  the  eye  thus  : 

I.  The  Inorganic  Era. 

1st  day.     Light  cosmical. 

2nd  day.     Earth  divided  from  the  fluid  around  it. 

r  I.  Outlining  of  land  and  water. 
^^       ^^''  \  2.  Creation  of  vegetation. 

II.  The  Organic  Era. 

4th  day.     Light,  from  the  sun. 

5th  day.     Creation  of  the  lower  animals. 

^.     ,        r  I.  Creation  of  mammals. 
6th  day.  \       r^        .         . 

(.2.  Creation  of  man. 

Not  only  is  the  analogy  patent  between  the  first 
and  fourth  day,  the  second  and  fifth,  the  third  and 
sixth,  but  the  work  of  each  day  seems  to  extend 
as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  work  of  the  succeeding 
day.  The  eras  partly  overlap.  Still,  to  make  the 
hands  clasp  the  intervention  of  God  was  necessary. 

According  to  Moses,  in  the  production  of  animal 
life  God  intervenes  directly  and    immediately.     The 


Il8  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Primary  Cause  is  here  at  work,  not  possibly  to  the 
total  exclusion  of  secondary  causes,  but  in  order 
to  supplement  their  defect,  and  carry  them  beyond 
their  natural  limits.  The  materials  at  hand  God 
utilised,  and  gave  nature  a  lift  to  a  higher  level 
than  it  could  in  its  own  energies  attain  to.  The 
production  of  animal  life  is  the  result  of  the  direct 
supernatural  intervention  of  God.  God  created. 
Here  arises  the  question,  How  did  He  create 
animal  life  ?  At  one  time  Professor  Huxley  believed 
that  the  potency  of  all  life  lay  enveloped  in  the 
slime  in  the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  to  which  he  gave 
the  high-sounding  name  "  Bathybius."  Bathybius, 
however,  nowhere  existed  except  in  the  imagination 
of  the  able  thinker  who  gave  it  a  name.  Some  of 
us  remember  following,  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago, 
with  considerable  interest,  the  lively  controversy 
then  waging  between  Dr.  Bastian  on  the  one  hand 
and  Professors  Tyndall  and  Huxley  on  the  other 
concerning  the  "  spontaneous  generation "  of  life. 
How  did  the  controversy  end  ?  In  the  firmer 
establishment  of  the  principle  that  out  of  the  non- 
living life  never  emerges.  But  life  is  in  the  world — 
how  came  it  ?  Moses  answers.  By  the  direct  inter- 
position of  God.  He  traces  life  to  the  supernatural. 
According  to  him,  life  is  something  new,  which 
entered  the  creation  long  after  its  start — not  as 
the  accidental  result  of  the  fermentation  of  chemical 
elements  or  the  conjunction  of  mechanical  laws,  but 
as  the  consequence  of  the  immediate  energising  of  the 
]3ivine  Power. 

The    supernatural    origin    of    life    granted,   again 
comes   the   question,    How  ?      As    a    protoplasm    or 


CREATION   AND   EVOLUTION  II9 

an  organism  ?  Did  the  Ggg  exist  before  the  hen, 
or  the  hen  before  the  egg  ?  Did  the  cell  precede 
the  animal,  or  the  animal  the  cell  ?  Evolutionism, 
of  course,  favours  the  precedence  of  the  cell,  the 
egg,  the  plasm.  On  this  supposition  the  whole 
theory  is  based.  But,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  Moses 
favours  the  alternative  view,  that  the  organism  is 
the  fontal  source  of  the  seed  :  "  And  God  said,  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed, 
and  the  first  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose 
seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the  earth  :  and  it  was  so." 
"  And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  and  herb 
yielding  seed  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree  yielding 
fruit,  whose  seed  was  in  itself,  after  his  kind  :  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good."  "  And  God  created 
great  whales,  and  every  living  creature  that  moveth, 
which  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly,  after 
their  kind,  and  every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind  : 
and  it  was  so."  To  practical  reason  it  certainly 
looks  more  likely  that  the  hen  laid  the  egg  than 
that  the  egg,  without  the  conditions  requisite  to 
fructification  and  incubation,  should  evolve  the  hen. 

We  would  do  well  here  to  ponder  the  weighty 
words  of  Lord  Salisbury,  deliberately  delivered  by 
him  as  the  President  of  the  British  Association  of 
Science  at  the  annual  meeting  at  Oxford.  He  was 
speaking  from  abundant  knowledge,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  leading  exponents  of  the  evolution 
theory.  After  frankly  conceding  to  Darwinism 
"that  few  are  now  found  to  doubt  that  animals 
separated  by  differences  far  exceeding  those  that 
distinguish  what  we  know  as  species,  have  yet 
descended    from    common    ancestors,"    the    learned 


I20  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Marquess  proceeds  :  "  There  is  much  less  agreement 
as  to  the  extent  to  wliich  this  common  descent  can 
be  assumed,  or  the  process  by  which  it  has  come 
about.  Darwin  himself  believed  that  all  animals 
were  descended  from  '  at  most  four  or  five  pro- 
genitors,' adding  that  'there  was  grandeur  in  the 
view  that  life  had  been  originally  breathed  by  the 
Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  one.'  Some  of  his  more 
devoted  followers,  like  Professor  Haeckel,  were 
prepared  to  go  a  step  further,  and  to  contemplate 
primitive  mud  as  the  probable  ancestor  of  the  whole 
fauna  and  flora  of  this  planet.  To  this  extent  the 
Darwinian  theory  has  not  effected  the  conquest  of 
scientific  opinion  ;  and  still  less  is  there  any  una- 
nimity in  the  acceptance  of  natural  selection  as  the 
sole,  or  even  the  main,  agent  of  whatever  modifi- 
cations may  have  led  up  to  the  existing  forms  of 
life.  The  deepest  obscurity  still  hangs  over  the 
origin  of  the  infinite  variety  of  life.  Two  of  the 
strongest  objections  to  the  Darwinian  explanation 
appear  still  to  retain  their  force." 

Lord  Salisbury  continues  :  "  Lord  Kelvin  was  the 
first  to  point  out  that  the  amount  of  time  required 
by  the  advocates  of  the  theory  for  working  out  the 
processes  they  had  imagined  could  not  be  conceded 
without  assuming  the  existence  of  a  totally  different 
set  of  natural  laws  from  those  with  which  we  are 
acquainted.  His  view  was  not  only  based  on 
profound  mechanical  reasoning,  but  it  was  so  plain 
that  any  layman  could  comprehend  it.  Setting  aside 
arguments  from  the  resistance  of  the  tides,  which 
may  be  taken  to  transcend  the  lay  understanding, 
his   argument   from    the    refrigeration    of    the   earth 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  121 

requires   little  science  to  apprehend  it.      Everybody 
knows   that    hot    things   cool,  and   that  according  to 
their    substance    they    take    more    or    less    time    in 
cooling.     It  is  evident  from  the  increase  of  heat  as 
we  descend  into  the  earth  that  the  earth  is  cooling, 
and   we    know    by   experiment   within    certain    wide 
limits  the  rate  at  which  its  substances,  the  matters 
of  which   it   is   constituted,   are   found   to   cool.     It 
follows   that   we    can    approximately   calculate   how 
hot  it  was   so  many   million    years   ago.     But   if  at 
any  time  it  was  hotter  at  the  surface  by  fifty  degrees 
Fahrenheit   than    it    is    now,   life   would    have    been 
impossible    upon    the   planet,  and   therefore  we   can 
without   much    difficulty    fix    a    date    before    which 
organic  life  on   earth   cannot  have   existed.     Basing 
himself  on  these  considerations.  Lord  Kelvin  limited 
the    period    of  organic  life    upon    the   earth   to   one 
hundred  million  years  ;  and  Professor  Tait,  in  a  still 
more   penurious   spirit,  cut    that   hundred   down   to 
ten.     But  on  the  other  side  of  the  account  stand  the 
claims  of  the  geologists  and  biologists.     They  have 
revelled    in    the    prodigality   of    the    ciphers   which 
they   put   at    the   end    of    the   earth's    hypothetical 
life.     Long  cribbed  and   cabined   within  the  narrow 
bounds  of  the  popular  chronology,  they  have  exulted 
wantonly  in  their  new  freedom.     They  have  lavished 
their   millions   of    years   with   the   open   hand   of  a 
prodigal    heir   indemnifying   himself  by  present   ex- 
travagance for  the  enforced  self-denial  of  his  youth. 
But  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  their  theories  require 
at  least  all    this    elbow-room.     If  we   think  of  that 
vast  distance  over  which   Darwin  conducts  us,  from 
the  jelly-fish  lying  on   the   primeval    beach   to   man 


122  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

as  we  know  him  now  ;  if  wc  reflect  that  the 
prodigious  change  requisite  to  transform  the  one 
into  the  other  is  made  up  of  a  chain  of  generations, 
each  advancing  by  a  minute  variation  from  the 
form  of  its  predecessor ;  and  if  we  further  reflect 
that  these  successive  changes  are  so  minute  that 
in  the  course  of  our  historic  period — say  three 
thousand  years — this  progressive  variation  has  not 
advanced  by  a  single  step  perceptible  to  our  eyes, 
in  respect  to  man  or  the  animals  and  plants  with 
which  man  is  familiar,  we  shall  admit  that  for  a 
chain  of  change  so  vast,  of  which  the  smallest 
link  is  longer  than  our  recorded  history,  the  biologists 
are  making  no  extravagant  claim  when  they  demand 
at  least  many  hundred  million  years  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  stupendous  process.  Of  course,  if 
the  mathematicians  are  right,  the  biologists  cannot 
have  what  they  demand.  If  for  the  purposes  of 
their  theory  organic  life  must  have  existed  on  the 
globe  more  than  one  hundred  million  years  ago,  it 
must,  under  the  temperature  then  prevailing,  have 
existed  in  a  state  of  vapour.  The  jelly-fish  would 
have  been  dissipated  in  steam  long  before  he  had 
had  a  chance  of  displaying  the  advantageous  varia- 
tion which  was  to  make  him  the  ancestor  of  the 
human  race."  According  to  the  learned  Marquess, 
"  the  laity  may  be  excused  for  returning  a  verdict 
of  'Not  proven.'"  If  in  their  calculations  Lord 
Kelvin  and  Professor  Tait  be  right,  where  will 
Professor  Drummond  find  room  for  his  "  Ascent 
of  Man,"  or  rather  his  "  Ascent  of  Woman  "  ? 

The    Mosaic    theology    seems     to    teach    lurther 
that   God   is    not    only    the    originator   of    the   first 


CREATION   AND   EVOLUTION 


123 


life,  but  also  the  chief  cause  of  the  different  kinds 
of  life  which  have  subsequently  appeared.  The 
chief  cause,  not  the  sole.  "  And  God  said,  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb,  and  the 
fruit  tree,  after  his  kbid!'  "  And  God  said.  Let  the 
waters  bring  forth  abundantly.  And  God  created 
whales,  and  every  living  creature  that  moveth,  after 
their  kind!'  "  And  God  said.  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  and  cattle 
after  their  kind-,  and  it  was  so."  These  words 
seem  to  imply  that  God  and  Nature  were  working 
in  partnership — not  God  without  Nature,  nor  Nature 
without  God.  The  vital  forces  of  the  world  were 
guided,  fortified,  and  supplemented  by  the  Supreme 
Force.  The  theory  that  originally  there  was  but 
one  species  or  kind,  out  of  which  all  other  species 
or  kinds  were  evolved,  here  meets  with  apparent 
opposition.  Singular  the  emphasis  laid  by  constant 
repetition  in  the  above  verses  on  the  phrase  "  after 
his  kind."  Materialistic  scientists  have  expatiated 
much  on  the  transmutation  of  species ;  but  their 
finely  woven  guesses  are  pronounced  by  spiritualistic 
scientists — and  they  are  a  host — to  be  mere  myths. 
Instead  of  the  myths  they  destroy,  materialists 
invent  myths  [of  their  own.  "  A  most  extensive 
series  of  observations  has  shown  how  groundless  is 
the  notion  of  transmutations  of  species  ;  and  not- 
withstanding the  excitement  caused  by  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis  with  respect  to  the  formation  of  species 
by  natural  processes,  the  most  eminent  men,  such 
as  Murchison,  Agassiz,  Owen,  and  others,  have 
declared  that  there  is  no  ground  for  presuming 
that  species  are  transitory,  while  uniform  experience 


124  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

shows  that  the  established  course  of  nature  is  decisive 
against  the  confused  mixture  of  hybrids,  whether  in 
plants  or  animals,  which  are  not  fertile  with  others, 
which  cannot  be  perpetuated,  and  usually  die  out  at 
the  next  gradation."  Environments  can  bring  about 
marvellous  modifications,  but  they  have  never  been 
known  to  transmute  one  species  into  another.  Not 
a  single  specimen  in  the  transition  state  has  ever  been 
discovered.  When  a  new  species  appears,  its  organi- 
sation is  always  complete.  A  wolf  may  become  a 
dog — environments  may  account  for  the  change  ;  but 
it  is  not  known  of  either  developing  into  a  sheep. 
Art  has  evolved  breeds  ;  but  the  chasm  between 
"  breeds  "  and  "  species  "  is  wide.  These  breeds,  as 
Professor  Le  Conte,  who  worthily  attempts  to  reconcile 
Christian  faith  with  modern  Evolutionism,  testifies, 
when  they  escape  the  influence  of  human  domesti- 
cation, and  arc  left  without  manipulation  in  the 
hands  of  nature,  always  revert  to  their  original 
type.  "  Natural  selection  compels  reversion^'  writes 
the  Professor  in  italics.  Singular  that  he  does 
not  see  that,  in  that  fact.  Nature  proclaims  her- 
self an  antagonist  of  transmutation,  and  when  left  to 
herself  vigorously  strives  to  obliterate  all  traces  of  the 
art  of  breeding.  God  has  created  plants,  fishes,  birds, 
animals,  each  ^^  after  /lis  kind'' \  and  the  barrier 
between  one  kind  and  another  no  effort  of  man 
can  break  down.  So  far  as  Science  has  read  the 
records  of  the  past,  not  a  single  instance  can  she 
point  out  in  which  Nature  has  allowed  the  partition 
walls  between  the  species  to  be  impaired. 

in.   Creation  of  Man. — "So   God  created  man  in 
His  own  image  ;  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him." 


CREATION    AND    EVOLUTION  125 

What  of  the  body  of  man  ?  Is  it  the  immediate 
creation  of  God  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  or 
His  mediate  creation  through  animals  which  existed 
before  him  ?  A  categorical  answer  is  not  returned  ; 
the  phraseology  is  indefinite  enough  to  admit  of 
either  method.  Professor  Drummond  has  a  very 
striking  title  to  one  of  his  chapters—"  The  Scaffolding 
left  in  the  Body."  The  author's  skilful  marshalling 
of  admitted  and  well-known  facts  made  on  my  mind 
a  deep  impression.  From  the  likenesses  he  pictures 
between  the  human  frame  and  the  animal  organism, 
he  comes  unhesitatingly  to  the  conclusion  that  man 
is  developed  from  the  animal,  the  animal  from  the 
primeval  ascidian.  The  argument  from  the  suc- 
cessive transformations  of  the  human  embryo— a 
subject  which  requires  the  profoundest  examination 
by  Christian  philosophers— has  not  yet  been  answered 
to  my  satisfaction. 

But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  direct  or  indirect 
formation  of  the  body  is  left  by  Moses  an  open 
question.  Wherein  then  does  his  teaching  differ 
from  modern  evolutionary  theories  ?  In  this, — 
that  God  acted  directly,  immediately,  that  is,  super- 
naturally,  in  constituting  man  the  thinking,  moral 
creature  that  he  to-day  is.  Nature  did  not  evolve 
him  ;  environments  did  not  develop  him  ;  and 
certainly  he  did  not  make  himself.  That  Nature, 
in  accordance  with  the  usual  plan  of  creation,  was 
being  prepared  for  the  advent  of  man,  that  in  her 
last  works  animal  life  threw  out  its  tendrils  as 
near  as  possible  to  rational  life,  is  readily  acknow- 
ledged. But  there  was  a  limit  beyond  which 
secondary  causes   could    not    travel  ;    here   precisely 


126  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

the  Creative  Power  came  in,  and — man  was  fashioned, 
the  image  and  likeness  of  the  Creator.  Man  may, 
if  the  phrase  be  allowed,  be  a  supernatural  develop- 
ment from  a  prior  animal  ;  he  cannot  be  the  product 
of  tiatural  evolution,  and  that  for  two  reasons. 

First,  because  in  other  apes,  either  in  the  historic 
or  prehistoric  periods,  no  tendency  has  been 
observed  to  transmute  themselves  into  men.  Is 
it  not  unaccountable,  and  therefore  unbelievable, 
that  millions  upon  millions  of  years  ago  there 
lived  an  ape,  or  perchance  a  pair,  male  and 
female,  which  passed  the  boundaries  of  animalhood 
and  entered  the  territory  of  manhood,  and  that 
no  ape  ever  since  has  crossed  the  frontier? 
Besides,  the  gap  between  the  most  advanced  ape 
and  the  lowest  developed  man  is  too  wide  for 
Nature  at  one  or  two  bounds  to  leap  over.  The 
largest  gorilla  brain  is  34*5  cubic  inches  ;  and, 
according  to  Professor  Schaafhausen,  the  smallest 
human  brain  is  46  cubic  inches.  That  Nature 
should  at  one  bound  advance  from  34  inches  to 
46  is  admittedly  impossible.  Therefore  materialistic 
scientists  have  resort  to  the  Missing  Link.  But 
how  came  the  link  to  be  missed,  such  a  large 
link,  and  the  link  nearest  to  man  too  ?  Professor 
Haeckel,  who  has  constituted  himself  the  knight- 
errant  of  Materialism,  answers  by  supposing  a  lost 
continent,  Lemuria,  submerged  under  the  Indian 
Ocean  ;  and  that,  if  we  could  only  go  down  there, 
the  Missing  Link  would  be  found  !  How  fruitful 
in  suppositions  materialistic  science  is  !  This  clever 
writer,  who  in  intellectual  grasp  comes  behind  none 
of  his  school,  is  driven  to    imagine  a    continent,  for 


CREATION    AND   EVOLUTION  127 

the  existence  of  which  not  a  tittle  of  proof  is  forth- 
coming, in   order  to  support  the  evolution-thesis. 

On  the  other  hand,  take  the  Biblical  view,  that 
God  either  directly  formed  a  new  creature  out  of 
pre-existent  earthly  materials,  summarising  in  him 
all  His  preceding  works,  or  that  supernaturally  He 
developed  a  preceding  animal,  be  he  ape  or  any 
other  creature,  into  the  corporeal  stature  and  mental 
condition  of  man  :  is  it  not  simpler,  more  credible, 
more  reasonable  ?  That  creation  on  any  theory  is 
a  mystery  must  be  confessed  ;  but  on  the  Scripture 
theory  it  is  a  mystery  of  light,  whilst  on  the 
evolutionary  theory  it  is  a  mystery  of  darkness. 
What  the  Biblical  author  lays  stress  on  is, — that 
man  is  not  the  resultant  of  the  operation  of  second- 
ary causes,  but  is  the  immediate  work  of  the  First 
Cause. 

But  behind  the  body  is  the  mind,  the  spirit  that 
is  in  man.  When  I  dwell  inordinately  on  the 
meannesses  and  littlenesses  of  man,  I  feel  no  repug- 
nance to  the  evolution  theory — I  am  almost  willing 
that  man  should  be  considered  wholly  the  descendant 
of  the  brutes.  But  when  I  consider  his  moral 
magnanimity,  witness  his  sorrow  and  repentance, 
hear  his  prayer  and  praise,  I  feel  that  there  is 
something  in  man  that  is  come  down  from  heaven, 
something  Divine  in  the  breast  of  man  that  has 
descended  straight  from  the  bosom  of  God.  Pro- 
found consciousness  of  this  made  the  ancient  thinkers 
of  Greece  pourtray  Prometheus  as  stealing  fire  from 
heaven  to  kindle  the  spirit  which  is  in  man.  Look 
in  his  eye,  and  you  behold  the  sparkle  and  glow 
of  the  Divine  Fire.     What  is  deepest,  and  therefore 


128  PRtMEVAL   REVELATION 

truest,  in  heathen  consciousness  finds  both  its  ex- 
planation and  expression  in  the  Mosaic  record.  The 
superhuman  is  the  deepest  human.  Plato  is  right 
in  saying  that  in  every  man  there  is  a  beast  ;  but 
equally  true  is  it  that  within  every  breast  dwells 
an  angel,  which  battles  with  the  beast  to  keep  him 
in  subjection.  The  beast  within  us — where  did  he 
come  from  ?  I  almost  think  the  evolutionists  are 
right,  that  he  came  from  the  brutes  of  the  primeval 
forest,  and  ultimately  from  the  primeval  slime  in  the 
bottom  of  the  sea. 

4 

Eglur  y  dengys  y  dyn 

O  ba  radd  y  b'o  'i  wreiddyn. 

But  whence  is  the  angel  within  us  derived  ? 
Moses  must  be  right  when  he  teaches  that  he 
descended  from  God.  Our  highest  nature  is  akin 
to  the  Divine.  Let  scientists  theorise  as  they  may, 
we  feel  that  Moses  has  given  the  true  philosophy 
of  our  origin.  The  evolutionists  are  possibly  right 
in  tracing  a  connection  between  our  physical  frame 
and  the  animal  organisms — a  connection,  however, 
admitting,  yea,  demanding  the  direct  intervention 
of  the  Creator.  Moses  is  incontrovertibly  right  in 
tracing  our  moral  nature  to  the  skies,  and  beholding 
in  it  a  mirror  reflecting  the  Deity  Himself.  The 
beast  and  the  angel,  the  animal  and  the  Divine, 
both  lodge  in  this  breast  of  mine. 

Mere  precisely  comes  in  the  possibility  of  the 
Fall.  In  reading  Drummond's  Ascent  of  Man^  I 
could  detect  no  possible  place  in  his  theory  for 
man's  fall,  I  could  see  no  room  in  it  for  sin  at 
all.     It    is   ascent,  ascent,  without    break,   and  with- 


CREATION   AND   EVOLUTION 


129 


out  retrogression,  from  plasm  to  animalism,  from 
animalism  to  barbarous  manhood,  and  from  bar- 
barous manhood  to  civilised  communities.  But  how- 
plausible  soever  the  scheme  appears  on  paper,  how 
attractive  soever  the  theory  is  made  to  look  on  his 
glowing  pages,  one  grim  fact  confronts  it  from 
beginning  to  end— SIN.  Evil  is  a  fact.  Wickedness 
is  a  terrible  reality.  No  theory  of  the  origin  of  man, 
however  intellectually  plausible,  which  provides  no 
room  for  the  origin  of  moral  evil  can  recommend  itself 
to  the  moral  judgment.  The  Fall  was  not  upward,  but 
downward.  Take  Moses'  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  race,  and  the  Fall  becomes  both  possible  and 
explicable.  The  triumph  of  the  dragon  in  our 
nature  over  the  angel,  of  the  corporeal  over  the 
spiritual,  of  the  lower  nature  over  the  higher — that, 
that  is  the  Fall  of  man.  The  victory  of  bodily 
appetences  over  the  dictates  of  conscience,  the  eating 
of  the  fruit  contrary  to  the  Divine  injunction, 
constituted,  according  to  Moses,  our  original  Fall, 
and  in  the  continued  subjugation  of  the  higher  nature 
by  the  lower  consists  our  present  degradation. 
Verily  the  Mosaic  theory  comports  well  with  the 
facts  of  consciousness.  Man  in  his  higher  nature  is 
the  supernatural  creation  of  God. 

IV.  To  conclude  this  chapter  without  directing 
attention  to  another  creation,  later  than  that  of 
Adam,  and  more  marvellous,  were  hardly  right — the 
PRODUCTION  OF  THE  GOD-MAN.  As  the  Old  Testa- 
ment begins  with  the  creation  of  the  First  Adam,  so 
the  New  commences  with  the  generation  of  the  Second 
Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

Jesus  Christ — is  He  the  product  of  evolution? 

9 


130  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

And  if  the  theory  collapses  here,  presumably  it  has 
broken  down  in  other  places.  It  is  by  no  means 
denied  that  the  world  was  being  gradually  prepared 
for  the  advent  of  the  Christ ;  but  the  preparation 
was  negative,  not  positive ;  and  a  negative  morality 
could  never  produce  a  positive  Saviour.  Contem- 
plate the  character  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  How  was  it 
produced  ?  Did  the  rottenness  of  society  in  His 
day  grow  His  holiness?  Did  the  bigotry  and 
narrowness  of  His  nation  produce  His  large- 
heartedness  and  magnanimity?  Did  the  hypocrisy 
and  intense  selfishness  of  His  contemporaries 
engender  His  infinite  holiness  and  unparalleled 
self-sacrifice,  which  stained  the  Cross  of  Calvary 
with  His  heart's  blood  ?  Development !  What 
was  there  in  sinful  humanity  that  could  develop 
into  a  sinless  Saviour  ?  Say  what  you  will,  before 
Bethlehem's  Manger  and  Calvary's  Cross  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  collapses  like  a  pricked 
balloon. 

How  then  to  account  for  Jesus  Christ  among  men  ? 
On  the  same  principle  as  Adam  is  accounted  for 
among  animals — by  the  miraculous  intervention  of 
God.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  Might  of  the  Highest  will  overshadow  thee,  and 
the  Holy  Thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God"  (Luke  i.  35).  The  Lord 
Jesus  is  the  unrivalled  product  of  the  direct  creative 
power  of  the  Almighty.  The  Birth  of  Bethlehem  is 
a  supernatural  fact— no  evolution  of  man,  but  the 
incarnation  of  God.  God  supernaturally  interfered 
in  the  creation  of  matter,  the  origination  of  life,  the 
production    of    mind,   and    the   generation   of  Jesus 


CREATION   AND  EVOLUTION 


131 


Christ  "Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an 
unclean?"  Nature  cannot,  evolution  cannot.  But 
"what  the  law" — natural  and  moral— "could  not  do, 
in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sent  His 
own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin 
condemned  sin  in  the  flesh." 

These  events,  not  clustered  together  so  as  to  disturb 
our  equanimity  respecting  the  stability  of  natural 
laws,  but  scattered  over  untold  ages,  commencing  in 
the  far-off  seon  at  the  beginning  of  time,  and  cul- 
minating in  Bethlehem  in  the  fulness  of  time,  are  the 
four  great  miracles  of  history.  "  The  first  Adam  was 
made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  a  quickening 
spirit"  (i  Cor.  xv.  45).  Adam  in  Eden  was  only 
the  recipient  of  spiritual  life ;  but  Jesus  Christ  is 
a  fountain  of  life,  a  quickening  spirit,  and  therefore 
can  impart  life  to  others.  Hence  He  is  the  Head 
of  a  new  creation,  and  thereby  is  able  to  retrieve 
the  disasters  of  the  Fall.  In  one  sense  the  Incar- 
nation completes  the  original  creation ;  in  another 
it  repairs  the  ruin  and  havoc  wrought  by  the  intro- 
duction of  sin. 

Appropriately,  therefore,  the  volume  of  Revelation 
ends  with  a  new  earth  and  a  new  heaven,  wherein 
dwelleth  righteousness.  The  end  returns  upon  the 
beginning,  but  octaves  higher.  In  Genesis  is  beheld 
an  earthly  Paradise ;  in  Revelation  a  Paradise  which 
is  heavenly.  In  Genesis  a  Tree  of  Life  is  seen 
growing  in  the  midst  of  the  Garden  ;  in  Revelation 
the  same  tree  grows  in  the  midst  of  the  Celestial  City 
and  on  either  side  of  the  river.  In  Genesis  a  river 
went  out  of  Eden,  whence  it  parted  into  four 
branches  ;   in  the  Apocalypse  is  shown  us  a  "  pure 


132  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

river  of  water  of  life,  clear  as  crystal,  proceeding  "  no 
longer  out  of  the  mountains  of  Armenia,  "  but  out  of 
the  Throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb,"  nevermore  to  be 
divided.  To  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  be  the 
glory,  world  without  end  ! 


CHAPTER    V 

THE   CREATION   OF   MAN 

THE  second  section  of  the  Mosaic  narrative 
begins  at  Gen.  ii.  4  :  "  These  are  the  genera- 
tions [ioledotli]  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Ten 
times  this  formula  is  repeated  in  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
each  time  on  the  introduction  of  a  new  subject.  It 
is  almost  a  pity  that  these  internal  demarcations 
are  not  more  formally  indicated  in  our  Authorised 
Version.  As  Moses  did  not  invent  these  "genera- 
tions" or  family  registers,  it  is  evident  that  they 
were  transmitted  from  ancient  times,  and  sacredly 
preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  utilised  by  him  for  the  purpose  of  a  religious 
history  of  the  world. 

That  he  used  ancient  documents  in  the  composition 
of  Genesis  seems  to  be  a  matter  of  common  sense. 
Where  then  does  his  inspiration  come  in?  In  the 
balance  of  judgment  displayed,  in  the  infallible 
power  to  sift  the  spurious  from  the  genuine,  in  the 
spiritual  insight  enabling  him  to  lop  off  all 
excrescences,  and  to  present  to  his  readers  only 
the  true,  the  beautiful,  and  the  good.  Superior 
intellect  is  evidenced  more  by  ability  to  separate 
truth  from  error  than  by  power  to  assail  or  defend, 

133 


134  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

with  ingenious  plausibility  and  a  vast  exhibition  of 
learning,  certain  specific  theses.  The  mind  which, 
by  the  power  of  insight,  without  the  aid  of  the 
canons  of  criticism,  is  able  at  a  glance  to  separate 
truth  from  the  intermingling  error,  men  usually 
honour  with  the  name  of  genius.  Having  then  in 
his  possession  documents  giving  the  past  history 
of  mankind,  Moses  used  them,  not  probably  in  their 
entirety,  piecing  them  together  mechanically,  but 
with  judgment  and  discrimination,  such  as  any 
author,  sensible  of  his  responsibility,  would  naturally 
exercise. 

Passing  from  the  first  to  the  second  section, 
our  attention  is  at  once  arrested  by  a  significant 
change  in  the  Divine  Name.  In  the  first,  the  Creator 
is  without  exception  denominated  God  (Elohim) ; 
in  the  second.  Lord  God  (Jehovah  Elohim).  In 
the  conversation,  however,  between  the  tempter 
and  Eve,  the  less  sacred  but  more  general  term  God 
is  employed — a  minute  variation  bearing  on  its 
face  the  unintentional  mark  of  verisimilitude.  Hence 
the  apparently  sound  critical  conclusion  of  the  exist- 
ence of  an  Elohistic  and  a  Jehovistic  writer.  Pro- 
fessor Driver  describes  the  style  of  the  Elohist  as 
"  unornate,  measured,  precise " ;  the  Jehovist  as 
"  freer  and  more  varied,"  "  picturesque  and  flowing." 
Accordingly,  wherever  in  the  Pentateuch  he  comes 
across  a  verse  or  passage  "  picturesque  and  flowing," 
he  puts  it  down  to  the  Jehovist  ;  but  where  he  meets 
with  a  matter-of-fact  style,  he  credits  it  to  the  Elohist. 
In  an  analysis  of  words  and  phrases  Dr.  Driver  is 
doubtless  an  expert  ;  but  others  probably  have  culti- 
vated a  sense  of  style  not  inferior  to  his.     Is  it  too 


THE  CREATION   OF  MAN  I35 

bold  to  say  that  the  first  chapter  is  as  fully  charged 
with  poetry  as  the  second,  indeed,  more  so,  inasmuch 
as  the  sublime  ranks  higher  than  the  descriptive  ? 

Postponing  for  the  present  the  discussion  relative 
to    the    respective    meanings    of    Elohim,    Jehovah, 
and  Jehovah  Elohim,  let  us  proceed  to  examine  the 
documents     themselves.      Writers      of     rationalistic 
proclivities  revel  in   the   occupation   of  enumerating 
the   many   disagreements  between  the  two  Creation 
narratives — the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic — in  order  to 
discredit  their  historical  trustworthiness.    The  sugges- 
tion is, — Seeing  the  two  accounts  conflict,  neither  is 
correct.     Here  again  Dr.  Dods  throws  his  great  weight 
on  the  side  of  the  destructive  criticism.    "  The  two  ac- 
counts," he  says,  "  which  no  ingenuity  can  reconcile." 
This  asseveration  is,  in  his  estimation,  so  indisputable 
that   it   requires   no   corroboration   or    proof.     More 
consonant    would    it    be,    it    strikes    me,    with    the 
sensitiveness   of    Christian    feeling,    if    the    eminent 
Scottish  divine  were  less  dogmatic  in  his  pronounce- 
ments on  the  alleged  "discrepancies."     Personally  I 
profit  more   by  the    authors  who  elicit  the  musical 
harmonies   of    the    rich   organ   than   by   those   who 
always  thump  their  fingers  on  every  cracked  string. 
Dr.    Dods   brings    out    with   his   well-known    ability 
the  underlying  lessons  ;    but   our   confidence   in  the 
inner    teaching    is    shaken,    when    we    are    uncere- 
moniously told   that   the    story  is  self-contradictory, 
and  therefore  erroneous.     Men  of  common  sense  ask, 
and  with   propriety,   Why   is    truth   arrayed    in   the 
garment  of  error  ?     Is  it  truth  ?     Seldom  is  the  kernel 
sound   and  palatable,  if  encased  in  a  cracked  shell. 
1  Genesis^  p.  2. 


136  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Putting  aside  the  inspiration  of  the  author  of  Genesis, 
and  viewing  him  simply  as  an  able,  learned,  honest 
man,  is  it  conceivable  that  he  would  clumsily  join 
together  two  narratives,  which  on  the  face  of  them 
contradict  each  other,  which  any  schoolboy  could 
detect,  but  which  he  could  not  see  ?  The  supposition 
is  preposterous.  Whatever  the  author  of  Genesis 
was,  he  was  neither  a  fool  nor  a  knave.  Moses  put 
the  documents  into  his  history  because  he  perceived 
that  they  were  essentially  harmonious,  and  con- 
stituting a  fit  beginning  to  his  religious  history  of 
the  race. 

The  contradiction  is  superficial,  the  harmony  deep, 
real.  The  order  of  the  creative  work  in  the  first 
chapter  is — (i)  vegetation,  (2)  animals,  (3)  man.  In 
the  second  the  order  runs — (i)  man,  (2)  vegetation, 
(3)  animals,  (4)  woman.  The  last  in  the  first  chapter 
is  first  in  the  second.  Is  not  the  conclusion  truer 
and  more  reverent  that  the  writer  beheld  the  differ- 
ences as  well  as  we  do,  and  that  therefore  the  two 
accounts  refer,  not  to  the  same  work  of  creation,  but 
that  the  first  relates  the  creation  of  the  earth  in  its 
totality,  and  the  second  the  special  preparation  of 
that  portion  of  the  earth  where  human  history  was  to 
find  its  starting-point  ?  And  when  the  two  accounts 
are  minutely  examined,  it  is  found  that  in  the  first 
chapter  the  word  employed  is  Jia-aretz^  signifying  the 
earth  as  a  whole,  and  in  the  second  adainaJi^  denoting 
that  "  region,"  "  land,"  or  "  field "  where  mankind, 
represented  by  their  first  parents,  began  their 
chequered  career.  Other  reconciliations  have  been 
suggested ;  and,  where  two  or  three  are  possible, 
no   writer  has   the   right,  in   an   offhand  manner,  to 


THE  CREATION   OF  MAN  137 

pronounce  an  adverse  judgment.  Be  the  author  of 
Genesis  who  he  may,  he  is  not  such  a  simpleton  as 
to  place  palpable  contradictions  in  the  forefront  of 
his  history.  Difficulties  there  are ;  but  difficulties 
are  not  discrepancies. 

In  the  first  chapter  Moses  gives  an  account  of 
the  creation  of  man— the  genus,  the  race— without 
descending  to  details  :  "  So  God  created  man  in  His 
own  image ;  in  the  image  of  God  created  He  him  ; 
male  and  female  created  He  them."  In  the  second 
he  enters  into  particulars,  tells  us  how  God  made  the 
first  human  individual— not  the  race,  but  the  pro- 
genitor of  the  race :  "  And  the  Jehovah  God  formed 
man,  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  lives  ;  and  man  became  a  living 
soul."  With  greater  perspicuity  than  before,  man's 
double  relation,  to  God  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the 
earth  on  the  other,  is  set  forth. 

I.  The  material  side  of  his  nature  is  explained: 
"  And  the  Lord  God  formed— kneaded— man,  dust  of 
the  ground."  The  figure  is  borrowed  from  an  artist 
kneading  clay,  and  modelling  it  into  the  human  form 
Divine.  But  to  take  this  metaphor  as  covering  the 
whole  ground  would  lead  us  astray.  God  should  not 
be  viewed  as  simply  an  artisan,  from  an  extraneous 
standpoint  impressing  His  idea  or  form  upon  plastic 
matter.  Other  Scriptures  correct  this  teaching  by 
representing  Him  as  an  immanent  principle  of  life, 
moulding  the  material  figure  from  within,  so  that  the 
corporeity  is  not  the  investiture,  but  the  growth,  of 
the  idea. 

What  materials  had  God  to  knead  ?  The  forma- 
tion of  the  human  body  was  not  a  creation  ex  nihilo. 


138  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

but  the  reconstruction  of  matter  already  existent. 
In  ver.  19  we  read  that  "the  Lord  God  formed 
every  beast  of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air  out 
of  the  ground."  But  of  man  it  is  recorded  that  the 
Lord  God  formed  him,  not  out  of  the  ground,  but 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground — a  subtle  distinction 
which  carries  in  it  a  world  of  meaning.  Consciously 
or  unconsciously,  the  intimation  is  conveyed  that,  in 
the  human  body,  earthly  matter  has  reached  the 
highest  refinement,  gross  elements  being  sublimated 
to  a  point  unknown  in  the  animal  world.  He  was 
made,  not  out  of  a  clod,  but  of  the  finest  dust ;  in  his 
fabric  there  is  observable  an  extreme  delicacy  of 
texture.  This  comports  well  with  the  opinion  that 
the  Scriptural  terms  employed  to  denote  the  material 
wherewith  our  bodily  frame  was  built  designate,  not 
matter  in  a  coarse,  undigested  state,  but  in  a  condition 
of  high  refinement.  Matter  is  carried  as  near  the 
spiritual  as  practicable.  "  Thou  shalt  return  unto  the 
ground,  for  dust  \apJiar\  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou 
shalt  return."  "  I  also  am  formed  out  of  the  clay 
\chomer\ " — not  the  brickmaker's  clay,  rough  and 
gritty,  but  the  potter's,  from  which  are  manufactured 
vessels  of  honour  for  the  king's  use. 

But  be  that  as  it  may,  due  prominence  is  here 
given  to  the  material  part  of  our  nature.  The  same 
physical  elements,  which  constitute  the  earth-soil, 
go  to  the  making  of  the  human  body.  Physiology 
gives  the  following  list  :  "  carbon,  chloride,  phos- 
phorus, fluorine,  nitrogen,  magnesium,  silicum, 
aluminium,  potassium,  sodium,  calcium,  iron,  man- 
ganese, titanium,  oxygen,  hydrogen."  Science  can 
reduce  the  body  into  all  that ;  but  she  cannot  make 


THE  CREATION   OF   MAN  1 39 

all  that  into  a  body  again  !  Therefore  the  Mosaic 
writer  brings  in  the  supernatural  interposition  of 
God. 

But  how  ?  Two  methods,  at  least,  are  conceivable. 
According  to  the  first,  God  fashioned  a  model  of 
clay,  with  all  the  external  and  internal  organs 
complete,  the  muscles  and  nerves  arranged  in  due 
order,  all  the  joints  closely  compacted  together,  and 
then  breathed  into  the  inanimate  statue,  till  the 
clay  was  converted  into  bone  and  flesh  and  ligaments, 
and  the  skin  glowed  with  the  pulsations  of  life.  That 
is  anthropomorphism,  I  confess ;  but,  being  men, 
we  cannot  well  escape  from  it,  and,  did  we  succeed, 
we  would  perhaps  be  farther  removed  from  the 
truth  than  we  are  now.  Man  being  made  in  the 
image  of  God,  anthropomorphism  is  often  theo- 
morphism.  This  is  also  the  method  in  which  the 
artistic  mind  of  Greece  conceived  that  Prometheus 
formed  the  first  man.  Into  this  form  God  is 
pourtrayed  as  breathing  the  spirit  of  life,  till  man 
became  a  living  soul.  As  Elisha  lay  on  the  lifeless 
body  of  the  child,  and  breathed  into  it  till  it  revived, 
so  God  is  pictured  as  waking  man  into  self-conscious- 
ness with  a  kiss!  A  fitting  beginning  to  the 
subsequent  revelation  of  His  love  ! 

The  other  alternative  is  the  method  known  as 
evolution.  But  two  kinds  of  evolution  are  con- 
ceivable—naturalistic and  supranaturalistic.  The 
theory  of  evolution  connected  with  the  name  of 
Darwin  is  the  naturalistic,  and  teaches  the  procession 
of  all  that  is  from  some  original  germ  or  cell, 
wholly  in  virtue  of  innate  forces,  called  into  activity 
by   environments.      It    admits    of   no    supernatural 


140  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

interference  or  Divine  influence  ab  extra.  To  it 
whether  God  exists  or  not  is  a  problem  ;  and  if 
He  does  exist,  it  means  nothing — He  is  of  no  good, 
does  nothing.  Eternal  matter  had  enveloped  in 
it  the  potency  of  all  that  is.  Man  proceeded  from 
the  animal,  the  animal  from  the  fish,  the  fish  from 
the  tadpole,  the  tadpole  from  the  eternal  mud.  To 
this  theory  of  evolution  the  Bible  from  beginning 
to  end,  Moses  no  less  than  Paul,  offers  consistent, 
uniform  resistance.  To  say  nothing  now  of  reason 
with  its  mathematical  truths,  and  conscience  with  its 
inflexible  moral  principles,  science  miserably  fails 
in  the  adduction  of  proofs.  The  most  illustrious 
scientists  are  the  most  forward  to  proclaim  this. 

Professor  Boyd-Dawkins  points  out  that  in  the 
palaeolithic  age  "  man  was  present  in  Europe  as 
man,  and  not  as  an  intermediate  form,  connecting 
the  human  race  with  the  lower  animals." 

Professor  Virchow  of  Berlin  writes :  "  You  are 
aware  that  I  am  now  specially  engaged  in  the  study 
of  anthropology  ;  but  I  am  bound  to  declare  that 
every  positive  advance  which  we  have  made  in  the 
province  of  prehistoric  anthropology  has  actually 
removed  us  farther  from  the  proof  of  such  a  con- 
nection [of  man  with  the  ape].  .  .  .  When  we  study 
the  fossil  man  of  the  quaternary  period,  who  must, 
of  course,  have  stood  comparatively  near  to  our 
primitive  ancestors  in  the  order  of  descent,  or  rather 
of  ascent,  we  find  always  a  viaii,  just  such  men  as 
arc  now.  .  .  .  The  old  troglod}'tcs,  pile-villagers, 
and  bog-people  prove  to  be  quite  a  respectable 
society.  They  have  heads  so  large  that  many  a 
living  person   would  be   only   too  happy   to  possess 


THE   CREATION   OF   MAN  14I 

such.  .  .  .  Nay,   if    we   gather    together    the   whole 
sum  of  the  fossil  men  hitherto  known,  and  put  them 
parallel   with    those    of    the    present    time,   we    can 
decidedly   pronounce    that   there   are    among   living 
men    a    much    larger    number    of    individuals   who 
show  a  relatively  inferior  type  than  there  are  among 
the  fossils  known  up  to  this  time.  .  .  .  Not  a  single 
fossil  skull  of  an  ape  or  an  '  ape-man '  has  yet  been 
found  that  could  really  have  belonged  to  a  human 
being.      Every  addition   to   the   amount   of  objects, 
which  we  have  attained  as  materials  for  discussion, 
has   removed    us   farther   from   the   hypothesis   pro- 
pounded."    In  the   preface   he   says:   "With   a   few 
individual    exceptions,   this    protest    has    met    with 
a   cordial    assent    from    German    naturalists."      His 
conclusion  is  :  "  We  cannot  teach,  we  cannot  pronounce 
it  to  be  a  conquest  of  science,  that  man  descends  from 
the  ape  or  any  other  animaiy^ 

Mr.  Wallace,  who   shares  with  Darwin  the  glory 
of    the    discovery    attached    to    the    latter's    name, 
but  who  rejects  the  Darwinian  conclusion  in  respect 
of  man,   says:    "The    few   remains    yet    known    of 
prehistoric  man  do  not  indicate  any  material  diminu- 
tion  in   the   size   of  the  brain-case.     A  Swiss  skull 
of  the   stone    age,   found    in    the    lake-dwelling    of 
Meilen,   corresponded    exactly   to   that    of  a    Swiss 
youth  of  the  present  day.     The  celebrated  Neander- 
thal   skull    had    a    larger    circumference    than    the 
average  ;    and   its   capacity   indicating    actual    mass 
of  brain   is   estimated   to   have   been  not   less  than 
75    cubic   inches,  or   nearly  the  average  of  existing 
Australian   crania.      The    Engis   skull,   perhaps   the 
1  The  Freedom  of  Science,  pp.  vi,  60,  62,  63. 


142  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

oldest  known,  and  which,  according  to  Sir  John 
Lubbock,  'there  seems  no  doubt  was  really  con- 
temporary with  the  mammoth  and  the  cave  bear,' 
is  yet,  according  to  Professor  Huxley,  *  a  fair  average 
skull,  which  might  have  belonged  to  a  philosopher 
or  might  have  contained  the  thoughtless  brains  of 
a  savage.'  Of  the  cave  men  of  Les  Eyzies,  who 
were  undoubtedly  contemporary  with  the  reindeer 
in  the  south  of  France,  Professor  Paul  Broca  says  : 
'  The  great  capacity  of  the  brain,  the  development 
of  the  frontal  region,  the  fine  elliptical  form  of 
the  profile  of  the  skull,  are  incontestable  character- 
istics of  superiority,  such  as  we  are  accustomed  to 
meet  with  in  civilised  races.'  "  ^ 

When  men  such  as  these,  acknowledged  princes 
in  the  realm  of  science,  thus  speak,  why  the  eager- 
ness on  the  part  of  Christian  divines  to  at  once 
modify  the  Christian  faith  to  accommodate  the 
new  theory  ?  Of  late  years  many  theologians  of 
repute,  have  written  that  between  Christianity 
and  evolution  there  is,  and  there  need  be,  no 
incompatibility  ;  that,  if  from  a  lower  animal  a 
higher  animal  is  developed  by  natural  forces,  the 
argument  from  design  is  strengthened — contrary, 
however,  to  the  protests  of  many  of  the  leading 
upholders  of  evolution,  who  maintain  that  teleology 
is  demolished — ^just  as  a  silver  watch,  which  could 
itself  manufacture  a  gold  one,  would  reflect  all 
the  more  credit  on  the  original  watchmaker.  But, 
admitting  that  evolution  invigorates  Theism,  does 
it  help  to  a  true  anthropology?  If  it  leaves  God 
intact,  does  it  leave  man  intact  ?  So  far,  I  have 
'  Theory  of  Natural  Se Ice h'o?2,  p.  336. 


THE  CREATION   OF  MAN  1 43 

refused  allegiance  to  the  Darwinian  evolution,  partly 
in  default  of  proofs,  and  partly,  not  in  the  interest 
of  God,  but  in  the  interest  of  man.  If  man  be 
a  product  of  the  evolution  of  nature,  he  cannot 
be  more  than  the  sum-total  of  all  that  preceded. 
Nothing  can  be  ^-volved  which  was  not  first  /«- 
volved  ;  nothing  can  come  out  this  end  of  the 
evolution-machine  which  did  not  go  in  at  the  other 
end.  This  is  one  valuable  service  Joseph  Cook 
rendered  by  his  lectures — driving  home  the  truth 
that  between  involution  and  evolution  there  must 
be  an  algebraic  equation.  If  mind  has  come  out 
this  end  in  man,  it  must  have  gone  in  at  the  other 
end  in  matter ;  or,  if  only  matter  went  in  the  other 
end,  only  matter  could  come  out  this  end — mind 
is  only  a  function  of  matter. 

A  modified  form,  however,  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  is  possible — that  which  I  have  named  the 
supranaturaHstic.  This  admits  of  immediate  Divine 
intervention  at  certain  critical  moments  in  the 
creation  and  development  of  life,  by  which  God 
introduces  new  staple  into  the  loom,  new  material 
into  the  machine.  But  these  interventions  should 
not  be  viewed  as  so  numerous  as  to  crowd  the 
universe  with  miracles.  The  laws  of  nature  are 
allowed  to  work  out  their  own  results  for  millions 
of  years — results  seen  in  innumerable  varieties  and 
improvements  of  species  ;  but  where  these  laws  have 
developed  themselves  to  their  utmost  capacity,  and 
can  do  no  more  and  reach  no  higher,  Biblical 
theology  introduces  the  direct  aid  of  the  Maker  of 
the  machine.  Professor  Du  Boys-Reymond,  him- 
self a  materialist,  enumerates   seven  enigmas   which 


144  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

naturalistic  evolution  cannot  solve  :  (i)  the  exist- 
ence of  matter  and  form  ;  (2)  the  origin  of  motion  ; 
(3)  the  origin  of  life ;  (4)  the  appearance  of  design 
in     nature  ;    (5)    the     existence     of    consciousness ; 

(6)  intelligent   thought   and   the    origin    of  speech ; 

(7)  the  question  of  Free  Will.  As  bearing  more 
especially  on  the  subject  of  our  present  discussion 
listen  to  this  eloquent  man  :  "  At  some  special  point 
in  the  development  of  life  on  the  earth,  which  we 
do  not  know,  there  appeared  something  new,  hitherto 
unprecedented,  a  thing  incomprehensible,  like  the 
essence  of  matter  and  force,  and  like  the  first  begin- 
ning of  motion.  The  thread  of  intelligence  reaching 
away  back  into  the  endless  past  is  snapped,  and 
our  knowledge  of  nature  reaches  a  chasm,  across 
which  no  bridge,  no  pinion  can  carry  us.  This 
new  and  incomprehensible  thing  is  CONSCIOUSNESS. 
I  am  about  to  demonstrate,  I  believe,  in  a  very 
conclusive  way,  that  consciousness  is  inexplicable 
by  material  conditions,  not  only  in  the  present  state 
of  our  knowledge,  which  indeed  every  one  admits, 
but  that  it  will  always  remain  inexplicable  by  such 
conditions."  But,  in  the  above  places,  where 
naturalistic  evolution  breaks  down,  the  Biblical  or 
supranaturalistic  theory  places  God — the  miraculous 
exertion  of  the  Divine  Power  and  Wisdom. 

The  second  alternative  therefore  is,  that  the 
human  body  was  evolved  from  a  prior  animal 
organism,  the  fittest  for  the  purpose,  not  by  the 
unassisted  operation  of  natural  laws  and  forces  in 
the  keen  struggle  for  existence,  but  by  the  super- 
natural aid  of  God  Almighty.  On  either  hypothesis 
the  Mosaic  allegation  stands  good  that   the   human 


THE  CREATION   OF  MAN  145 

body  was  formed — dust  of  the  ground.  The  view 
that  God  fashioned  man  straightway  out  of  clay 
would  dovetail  with  the  Mosaic  teaching,  but  leave 
the  traces  of  prior  existences,  the  "  scaffolding,"  in 
the  body  unexplained.  The  second  view  agrees 
quite  as  well  with  Genesis,  whilst  at  the  same  time 
it  accounts  for  the  vestiges  of  reptile,  fish,  and  animal 
observable  in  the  evolution  of  the  pre-natal  human 
embryo. 

This  view,  formed  on  independent  grounds,  is,  I 
find,  favoured  by  that  profound  thinker  and  accom- 
plished scholar,  Professor  Tayler  Lewis.  After 
averring  that  the  formation  of  man  is  "an  entirely 
new  creative  act,  and  indeed  the  very  highest,"  he 
adds  :  "  But  this  does  not  exclude  the  idea  that 
the  human  physical  was  connected  with  the  previous 
nature,  or  natures,  and  was  brought  out  of  them. 
That  is,  it  was  made  from  the  earth  in  the  widest 
signification  of  the  term.  That  it  was  not  a  mere 
plastic  shaping,  or  outward  mechanical  structure, 
is  implied  ...  in  the  non-passivity  of  the  earth. 
There  are  immense  difficulties  connected  with  the 
idea  of  an  outward  Promethean  image,  a  dead 
organisation  which,  although  having  the  appearance, 
is  really  no  organisation  at  all  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  word,  any  more  than  the  marble  statue  or  the 
waxen  image.  No  one  supposes  that  the  making 
of  the  human  body  was  an  immediate  making  ex 
niJiilo.  It  was  made  from  the  earth,  and  this  earth 
had  already  had  its  nature,  according  to  its  varieties 
of  carbon,  nitrogen,  etc. ;  and  these,  as  natures,  con- 
nected with  other  natures,  entered  into  the  human 
body.     If  it   is   not    a   creation   ex  nihilo,  which   is 

10 


146  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

expressly  contrary  to  the  language  of  the  account, 
we  must  suppose  a  connection  with  nature  to  a 
certain  extent.  What  difficulty  or  danger,  then, 
in  giving  to  the  phrase  '  from  the  earth '  the  widest 
sense  consistent  with  the  idea  of  man's  having  an 
earthly  as  well  as  a  heavenly  origin  ?  It  is  this 
latter  idea,  and  the  higher  psychology  connected 
with  it,  that  furnishes  to  faith  its  shield  against  all 
mere  theories  of  development  that  may  proceed, 
with  weaker  or  stronger  evidence,  from  a  naturalising 
science."  ^ 

"  All  that  we  have  is  the  fact  that  by  some  process 
the  human  body  was  brought  from  the  earth,  or  that 
thus  the  human  physical,  coming  from  the  lower 
physical,  and  through  the  connecting  links,  types,  or 
moulds,  as  carried  upwards  by  the  Divine  formations, 
was  at  last  brought  into  the  state,  in  which  it  was 
prepared  to  receive  that  Divine  inspiration,  which 
alone  constitutes  the  species  and  makes  it  man. 
The  primus  homo  was  the  first  man  thus  inspired,  and 
who  became  the  progenitor  of  the  species.  The  first 
Adam  was  made  by  the  Divine  Life  raising  the 
physical  or  animal  into  the  rational.  The  Second 
Adam  represents  a  higher  inspiration,  elevating  the 
rational  human  to  a  close  union  with  the  Divine. 
Such  is  the  analogy  of  the  Apostle.  Christ  elevates 
the  human,  even  as  the  first  human,  '  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Almighty,'  is  the  uplifting  of  the  mere 
animal  or  physical  that  lay  below.  The  second 
mystery  is  the  greater,  and  our  belief  in  it  should 
take  away  any  wonder  or  difficulty  that  may  attend 
the  first."  2 

*  Lange's  Com.,  p.  211.  '  Ibid.,  p.  156. 


THE   CREATION   OF   MAN  I47 

II.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  examine  the 
second  Mosaic  statement  that  "  God  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  lives,  and  man  became  a 
living  soul." 

Plurality  of  lives  is  here  ascribed  to  man.  The 
first  is  a  life  akin  to  that  of  the  plant,  a  life  vv^hich 
proceeds  without  pause  in  the  organism.  Whether 
we  be  asleep  or  awake,  working  or  resting,  the 
internal  organs  discharge  their  functions,  without 
asking  our  consent  or  reporting  to  consciousness 
their  doings.  This  vegetal  life,  having  its  centre  in 
the  heart,  is  involuntary.  The  food  is  swallowed  ; 
and  this  life  instantly  appropriates  it,  analyses  it, 
directs  each  element  to  its  proper  channel,  thus 
incorporating  in  the  organism  the  aliment  therein 
contained.  What  is  this  mysterious  principle  of  life, 
which  enables  the  internal  organs,  devoid  of  intelli- 
gence, to  absorb  what  is  conducive  to  health  and 
vigour,  and  to  expel  all  that  is  injurious  and  un- 
wholesome? All  men  truly  vegetate,  and  this 
vegetal  or  plant  life  is  the  substratum  on  which  all 
nobler  life  is  built. 

The  second  is  animal  life,  having  its  centre  in  the 
brain.  As  the  vegetal  life  is  the  source  of  nutrition, 
so  the  animal  life  is  the  fount  of  sensation  and 
locomotion.  The  more  convoluted  brain  does  not 
necessarily  indicate  greater  intelligence,  for  it  is  the 
source  of  motor  more  than  of  thought  power. 
"  Advance  in  intelligence,"  says  Professor  Calder- 
wood,  "  and  advance  in  complexity  of  brain  structure 
do  not  keep  pace  with  each  other,  they  are  not 
correlated  so  as  to  harmonise."^ 

^  Relation  of  Mind  and  Brain,  p.  148. 


148  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

But  over  and  above  all  is  intellectual  or  spiritual 
life :  "  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
[ruac/i]  of  lives,  and  man  became  a  living  soul 
[nep/ies/iy  This  word  JiepJiesJi — soul — has  reference 
to  the  two  preceding  sentences,  and  includes  on  the 
one  hand  the  body,  and  on  the  other  the  spirit.  In 
modern  phraseology  the  soul  is  used  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  body,  but  in  the  Old  Testament 
as  inclusive  of  both  body  and  spirit.  For  the 
understanding,  therefore,  of  Biblical  psychology  it  is 
expedient  that  the  mind  grasps  the  comprehensive- 
ness of  meaning  in  the  term  "soul,"  that  it  is 
co-extensive  with  human  nature  on  both  sides,  the 
physical  and  spiritual,  gravitating  in  Biblical  usage 
sometimes  more  to  the  corporeal  and  sometimes 
more  to  the  spiritual  signification.  In  Gen.  i.  30  it 
is  employed  of  irrational  animals  :  "  To  every  beast 
of  the  earth,  and  to  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to 
everything  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth,  wherein 
there  is  life,  I  have  given  every  green  herb  for  meat." 
The  word  for  life  here  is  the  same  word  nepJiesJi,  and 
is  rightly  translated  in  the  margin  "a  living  soul." 
Everything  which  liveth,  therefore,  according  to 
Scriptural  nomenclature,  has  a  nephesh,  a  living 
soul. 

Take  again  the  concomitant  word  ruach,  spirit. 
On  comparison  of  the  passages  where  it  occurs,  we 
discover  that  it  signifies  the  principle  of  life,  and  is 
therefore  properly  applicable  to  all  living  creatures. 
Thus  we  read  in  Gen.  vii.  15:  "  And  they  went  in 
unto  Noah  into  the  ark,  two  and  two  of  all  flesh, 
wherein  is  the  breath  [riiachy  spirit]  of  life."     If  both 


THE   CREATION    OF   MAN  149 

words  then  are  equally  applicable  to  every  living 
creature,  wherein  consists  their  difference?  In 
this  :  nephesh  designates  the  life,  ruach  the  principle 
of  life  ;  the  first  denotes  the  effect,  the  second  the 
cause — that  invisible  principle  or  force  which  issues 
in  sensation  and  locomotion. 

Nephesh  then  is  life,  ruach  the  principle  of  life  : 
on  this  ground  man  and  the  animal  creation  are 
on  the  same  level.  The  superiority  of  man  over 
his  humbler  confreres  lies  in  the  possession,  not  of 
the  principle,  but  of  the  immortal  principle  of  life, 
symbolised  by  Moses  as  the  inbreathing  of  God 
into  the  nostrils  of  man.  This  act  differentiates 
man  from  all  terrestrial  beings.  There  are  then 
body,  soul,  and  spirit,  the  soul  being  the  middle 
term  in  which  body  and  spirit  meet  in  the  unity 
of  personality. 

Are  we  then  to  understand  that  Moses  teaches 
the  tripartition  of  human  nature  ?  Many  of  the 
ablest  expositors  answer  in  the  affirmative,  among 
them  the  learned  Delitzsch.  However,  after  a 
sympathetic  examination  of  the  theory,  I  perceive 
no  sufficient  reason  to  discard  the  old  view  that 
man  is  composed  of  two  parts,  one  material,  the 
other  spiritual — spirit  and  soul  being  only  two  names 
to  designate  the  double  side  of  the  one  immaterial 
substance.  On  the  world-side  it  is  soul ;  on  the 
God-side  it  is  spirit.  Consequently,  when  the  con- 
nection between  this  immaterial  substance  and  the 
material  body  is  snapped  in  death,  the  former  is 
no  longer  soul,  but  spirit.  It  is  not  the  soul,  but 
the  spirit,  which  "  returns  to  God  which  gave  it." 
It   is  not  the   souls,  but  the  "spirits  of  just  men," 


150  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

that  dwell  on  Mount  Zion.  The  spirit  embodied 
is  soul  ;  the  soul  disembodied  is  spirit.  This  dis- 
tinction may  not  be  universally  applicable,  no  such 
distinction  being  perhaps  possible  ;  but  it  is  work- 
able, and  solves  to  a  large  extent  the  difficulties 
of  phraseology  frequently  occurring  in  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament. 

This  Divine  inbreathing,  what  is  its  theological 
import  ?  In  the  production  of  life,  short  of  self- 
consciousness,  God  simply  utters  the  creative  fiat, 
merely  exerts  His  bare  omnipotence,  and  the  desired 
result  is  achieved.  But  in  the  creation  of  man 
God  more  than  speaks — He  breathes  into  him  the 
spirit  of  lives.  The  Divine  inspiration,  not  the 
Divine  command,  it  is  which  makes  him  a  man. 
Does  not  this  intimate  that  in  the  creation  of  man 
there  was  included  an  element  of  Divine  generation  ? 
Moses  is  not  afraid  to  use  this  word  once  and 
again.  The  heathen  doctrine  of  emanation,  as  the 
necessary  outflow  of  the  Divine  nature,  must  of 
course  be  repudiated  ;  but  that  it  contained  a  sub- 
stratum of  truth  cannot  be  denied  ;  how  otherwise 
could  it  have  met  with  such  universal  acceptance  ? 
That  we  are  here  touching  on  a  great  mystery 
we  admit ;  therefore  our  words  should  be  reverent 
and  circumspect.  Still,  even  in  the  darkness  it  is 
not  politic  to  shut  our  eyes.  This  Divine  inspira- 
tion of  man  seems  to  be  something  between  the 
necessary  generation  of  the  Son  and  the  statutory 
production  of  the  animal — a  voluntary,  as  distin- 
guished from  a  necessary,  emanation  ;  partaking 
on  the  one  hand  of  the  character  of  generation, 
sharing  on  the  other  the  character  of  pure  creation. 


THE   CREATION   OF   MAN  151 

It  follows,  according  to  the  Mosaic  teaching,  that 
in  man  there  resides  something  uncreated,  truly 
Divine,  more  than  finite.  This  truth  made  itself 
felt  in  the  ethnic  consciousness,  and  found  utterance 
in  the  Greek  poet — "  We  are  God's  offspring."  Not 
only  we  are  fashioned  by,  but  begotten  of,  God. 
Deep  down  in  our  spirits,  when  we  seriously  reflect 
upon  it  in  the  stillness  of  the  night,  we  feel  that 
we  transcend  the  creation,  that  we  are  greater  than 
the  mere  finite — if  not  In  our  powers,  then  in  our 
wants.  We  are  the  progeny  of  God,  veritable 
members  of  the  Divine  household.  Though  this 
conviction  found  expression  in  Greek  poetry,  it 
did  not  find  its  explanation  in  Greek  philosophy. 
The  true  solution  is  only  to  be  found  in  the  Mosaic 
doctrine  of  creation.  The  Genesis  narrative  satis- 
factorily accounts  for  the  tragic  poetry  of  Greece, 
whereas  on  the  materialistic  hypothesis  of  evolution 
the  highest  poetry  of  the  world  remains  for  ever 
inexplicable. 

The  Greek  sentiment  of  constitutional  affinity 
between  God  and  man  finds  not  only  its  elucidation, 
but  its  clearer  articulation  and  larger  expansion,  in 
the  Hebrew  theology.  From  the  Mosaic  doctrine 
of  the  Divine  inspiration  of  man,  through  deep 
pious  meditation  thereon,  the  prophets  had  awakened 
within  them  the  consciousness  which  enabled  them 
to  have  a  glimpse  of  the  natural  fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  corresponding  natural  sonship  of  man.  "  Art 
Thou  not  our  Father  ?  "  "  The  Father  of  spirits." 
This  vague,  indefinite  sentiment  was  at  length  pre- 
cipitated, reduced  into  a  matter  of  fact,  and  intro- 
duced as  the  first  link  in   the   chain  of  genealogies 


152  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

in  the  families  of  Israel :  "  The  son  of  Seth,  the  son  of 
Adam,  the  son  of  God  "  (Luke  iii.  38).  This  last  link 
St.  Luke  would  not  have  introduced  as  an  imaginary 
embellishment ;  for,  if  he  took  the  liberty  of  adding 
a  new  link  at  the  commencement,  at  the  bidding 
of  fancy,  what  guarantee  should  his  readers  have 
that  he  was  not  indulging  in  imaginary  inventions 
all  through  his  history?  Hebrew  theology  had,  in 
the  roll  of  the  centuries,  consolidated  itself  into  the 
hard  fact  here  posited.  Moses,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament,  says  :  "  God  breathed 
into  the  first  man's  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and 
he  became  a  living  soul."  Luke's  comment,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  New  Testament,  is  :  "  Adam,  son 
of  God."  The  inspiration  of  man  in  Genesis  has, 
in  the  Israelite  consciousness,  developed,  till  in  the 
fulness  of  time  it  blossomed  into  the  filiation 
of  man.  Marvellous  the  analogies  between  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Bible !  How  to 
account  for  them  ?  So  far  as  I  can  see,  there  is 
but  one  explanation — a  superhuman  mind  guided 
the  entire  process. 

In  these  chapters  Moses  lays  down  the  primal 
basis  of  the  subsequent  doctrine  of  the  natural 
Fatherhood  of  God  and  of  the  correlated  doctrine 
of  the  natural  Sonship  of  man.  God  is  the  Maker 
of  the  stars,  but  He  is  the  Father  of  men.  He 
is  the  Creator  of  the  brutes,  but  He  is  the  Begetter 
of  spirits.  In  His  first  origination  man  derived 
from  God  some  quality  or  principle — call  it  what 
you  will — something  truly,  genuinely  Divine,  con- 
stituting him  the  son  of  God.  Hence  his  ceaseless 
roamings  beyond    the  boundaries  of  the   finite   and 


THE   CREATION   OF   MAN  1 53 

limited  into  the  boundless  and  the  vast.  Evidence 
of  the  Divine  element  in  him  is  that  he  always 
seeks  the  Beyond,  hankers  after  the  Unknown.  He 
is  always  attempting  to  escape  from  his  limitations, 
battering  at  the  partition  walls  of  the  finite  ;  and, 
when  he  cannot  demolish  the  walls,"  he  takes  to 
his  wings  and  flies  away.  He  soars  beyond  the 
limits  of  time  and  space.  He  has  an  idea  of  the 
infinite,  eternal,  incomprehensible.  Just  think  what 
that  means !  It  straightway  marks  him  out  as 
a  comrade  of  the  gods.  Plato  seeks  to  explain 
these  longings,  these  endless  flutterings  of  the  spirit, 
on  the  hypothesis  that  they  are  dim  reminiscences 
of  our  pre-existence  in  a  higher  state  of  being. 
Wordsworth  interprets  at  the  same  time  the  Platonic 
philosophy  and  the  Mosaic  theology  in  the  well- 
known  lines  : 

Our  birth  is  but  a  sleep  and  a  forgetting: 
The  Soul  that  rises  with  us,  our  life's  Star, 

Hath  had  elsewhere  its  setting, 
And  Cometh  from  afar  : 

Not  in  entire  forgetfulness, 

And  not  in  utter  nakedness, 
But  trailing  clouds  of  glory  do  we  come 

From  God,  who  is  our  home: 
Heaven  lies  about  us  in  our  infancy.  ^ 

How  to  account  for  the  popularity  of  these 
words,  the  echoes  of  which  never  die  within  us  ? 
Only  on  the  supposition  that  they  present  a  true 
explanation  of  our  spiritual  instincts,  that  the 
poet     in     language    felicitous     and     musical     gives 

1  Ode,  Intimations  of  Immortality, 


154  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

eloquent  tongue  to  the  pent-up  consciousness  of 
the  race. 

The  ancients  had  a  fable  of  the  lost  bells,  sunk 
in  the  bottom  of  the  sea  ;  but  which,  when  the 
waves  lay  still,  and  the  winds  hushed,  gently  tolled, 
as  if  calling  men  to  worship,  their  soft,  pure  notes 
being  heard  by  the  mariners  on  clear,  starry  nights. 
Have  you  never  heard  the  tolling  of  the  lost  bells? 
In  the  cool  of  the  evening,  or  under  the  light  of  the 
stars,  when  the  turmoil  of  business  had  subsided, 
and  the  passions  slept,  did  you  not  hear  the  bells 
calling  you  to  church  ?  Did  you  not  catch  the  soft, 
dying  notes  of  heavenly  music,  gently  welling  up 
from  the  depth  of  your  nature,  a  still,  small  voice 
as  from  eternity,  soft  and  loving  like  the  warbling 
of  a  blackbird  at  the  burial  of  its  mate,  till  you 
longed  for  home,  for  heaven,  for  God  ?  I  need  no 
German  commentators  to  explain  to  me  the  Divine 
Inbreathing — I  know  the  dream  and  the  interpre- 
tation thereof.  I  have,  time  and  again,  listened  to 
those  bells  gently  summoning  me  to  worship ;  I 
have  bowed  my  knees  in  the  mystic  twilight  in 
the  dales  and  on  the  hills ;  I  have  sobbed  out  in 
broken  accents  the  words,  Abba,  Father ;  and  I 
have  felt  the  Divine  Breathing  fresh  in  my  face  as 
in  Eden,  warm,  sympathetic,  enlivening,  like  the 
south  wind  over  a  garden  of  roses  ;  and  from  the 
midst  of  bodily  infirmity,  intellectual  torpor,  and 
spiritual  lethargy,  I  have  risen  a  living  soul,  claiming 
my  sovereignty  over  the  creatures,  and  my 
fellowship  in  God's  family,  and  all  this  by  Right 
Divine  ! 

III.  The   two   constituent  parts  of  human  nature 


THE  CREATION   OF   MAN  155 

the  material  and  spiritual,  are  joined   in   the  Unity 
of  Personality. 

Modern  thought  has  been  in  the  habit  of  laying 
stress  on  the  contrariety  of  body  and  mind.  It 
has  viewed  the  body  as  the  prison,  not  the  palace, 
of  the  soul ;  a  shackle,  impeding  the  free  movements 
of  the  spirit,  instead  of  an  organ  or  instrument 
facilitating  its  acts  of  thought.  But  Hebrew  theology 
took  a  diametrically  opposite  view.  In  man,  as 
God  made  him,  body  and  soul  form  a  harmonious 
human  personality.  So  far  from  being  a  hindrance 
or  clog,  the  physical  nature  is  a  help,  and  essential 
to  the  ideal  humanity.  A  pure  spirit  may  in  the 
nakedness  of  its  essence  carry  on  mental  operations  ; 
I  am  speaking  of  the  human  spirit.  Mind  without 
body,  spirit  without  corporeity,  is  not  man,  but  man 
mutilated,  divided,  broken.  Consciousness  of  this 
truth  made  the  ancients  look  upon  death  as  the 
King  of  Terrors.  To  them  the  dissolution  of  the 
body  meant  the  disintegration  of  the  man.  And 
they  were  right.  To  their  thinking  the  other  world 
was  Sheol,  the  Land  of  Shades ;  life  was  not  extinct, 
but  it  only  dimly  smouldered ;  consciousness  was 
not  eliminated,  but  it  had  lost  all  vividness.  The 
colours  were  all  washed  out  of  the  life.  Therefore 
life  in  union  with  the  body,  however  impoverished, 
was  deemed  incomparably  preferable  to  life  with- 
out the  body.  The  immortality  of  the  soul  was, 
of  course,  from  the  outset  an  article  of  their  creedj 
or,  rather,  not  an  article,  but  the  substratum  of  all 
their  belief  To  them,  however,  sheer  annihilation 
was  almost  preferable  to  the  mere  immortality  of 
the  naked  soul.     They  shuddered  at  the  thought  of 


156  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Sheol,  where  the  spirit  survived,  a  pale,  thin,  attenuated 
skeleton  of  its  former  self.  The  poet  embodies  the 
Hebrew  thought  on  the  matter  : 

I  go  whence  I  shall  not  return, 
Even  to  the  land  of  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death  ; 
A  land  of  thick  darkness,  as  darkness  itself ; 
A  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  without  any  order. 
And  where  light  is  as  darkness.  ^ 

In  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of  Thee, 
In  Sheol  who  shall  give  Thee  thanks  ?  ^ 

This  feeling  of  indescribable  depression  in  the  grim 
presence  of  death,  so  observable  in  the  Hebrews, 
possessed  the  Greek  mind  even  more  fully.  Homer 
makes  one  of  his  departed  heroes  say  that  he  would 
prefer  leading  the  life  of  a  swineherd  on  the  earth  to 
dwelling  in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death.  The 
Greeks,  like  the  Hebrews,  believed  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul ;  but  viewing  matter  as  essentially  evil,  to 
them  the  body  was  the  prison  of  the  soul ;  conse- 
quently the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
never  glimmered  through  their  darkness.  The 
Hebrews,  on  the  contrary,  starting  from  the  right 
premises  as  set  forth  by  Moses  in  the  Creation  story 
— that  matter  is  not  in  itself  evil,  and  that  conse- 
quently the  body  is  not  an  unequal  yoke-fellow  to 
the  spirit,  that  matter  and  mind  are  necessary  to  the 
realisation  of  the  Divine  ideal  of  humanity — gradually 
groped  through  the  darkness  of  the  grave  into  a  dim 
apperception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection.  By 
this  it  is  not  intended  that  they,  by  meditation  alone, 
would  have   arrived    at   this    doctrine ;    but  that  the 

'  Job  X.  21,  22.  ^  Ps.  vi.  5. 


THE   CREATION    OF   MAN  I57 

Creation  story  afforded  a  ground  in  their  religious 
consciousness  for  a  belief  in  the  doctrine,  gradually 
revealed,  that,  as  the  union  of  body  and  soul  forms 
an  integral  part  of  the  Divine  idea  of  man,  these 
two  constituent  factors  would  not  remain  for  ever 
separate,  and  that  the  body  would  yet  be  rescued 
from  the  power  of  the  grave. 

Greek  philosophy  fitfully  taught  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  ;  to  teach  the  immortality  of  the  body  would 
be  in  flat  contradiction  to  one  of  its  fundamental 
principles — to  wit,  the  inherent  evil  of  matter.  But 
Hebrew  theology,  establishing  itself  on  the  Creation 
story,  had  ample  room  in  it  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortality  of  man  in  the  totality  of  his  dual  nature 
— the  survival  of  the  soul  through  death  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  in  the  last  day,  the  two 
thenceforth  to  be  indissolubly  and  for  ever  united. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  rests  foursquare  on 
the  Mosaic  doctrine  of  Creation.  It  is  not  an  ex- 
traneous speculation,  thrown  in  as  compensation  for 
the  trials,  conflicts,  and  deprivations  of  our  present 
pilgrimage,  a  gilt  appendix  to  the  volume  of  life,  but 
a  truth  essential  to  salvation,  laying  hold  of  the  core 
of  humanity,  and  without  which  the  Divine  ideal 
of  man  would  for  ever  remain  fragmentary  and 
incomplete. 

In  his  creation  man  was  a  compound  being,  each 
constituent  necessary  to  the  realisation  of  the  Divine 
order.  Sin  broke  up  the  unity,  and  by  death 
sundered  what  God  had  joined.  The  Salvation  in 
Christ  is  a  salvation  of  body  and  soul,  not  only  that 
its  virtues  might  be  co-extensive  with  the  ravages 
wrought  by  sin,  but  that  man  might  be  restored  to 


158  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

his  pristine  perfection.  Thus  the  fully  developed 
doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  in  the  New  Testament 
is  the  complement,  indeed  the  consequent,  of  the 
Genesis  doctrine  of  Creation.  Are  not  these  corre- 
spondences wonderful?  The  teaching  of  Moses  in 
Genesis  concerning  creation  furnishes  the  foundation 
for  the  teaching  of  Paul  in  the  New  Testament 
concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Is  there  not 
in  Scripture  a  progressive  evolution  as  amazing 
as  anything  Science  has  discovered  in  Nature? 
Assuredly  the  Maker  of  Nature  is,  in  a  profound 
sense,  the  Author  of  Scripture. 


CHAPTER    VI 

MAN    IN    EDEN 

IN  the  first  two  chapters  Adam  is  a  generic  name, 
without  a  capital  letter  :  '*  And  God  said,  Let  Us 
make  man  [adam]  in  Our  image,  after  Our  likeness." 
In   the    third  chapter   the  generic  is  converted  into 
a  specific  or  proper  name,  denoting  not  the  genus, 
but  the  individual  Adam.     On  the  precise  meaning 
of  the   term    scholars   are,   as    usual,   divided.     The 
most   accepted    signification    is    that    Adam    means 
earth.      An    objection,    however,    has    been    raised 
against  this  derivation,  because  of  the  improbability 
that  the   Creator   would   give   His   noblest  creature 
a  cognomen  applicable  to  his  lower,  not  his  higher, 
nature.     Hence  attempts  have   been  made  to  trace 
it  to  damah—\.o  be  like,  to  resemble  :  "  Let  Us  make 
man.   Our  likeness."     Determined   never   to   be   left 
behind,  a  few  rationalists,    demurring   to  the  above 
explanations,    trace    it   to    the    Ethiopic    amuthig— 
pleasant,  agreeable,  handsome.     Doubtless  the  reply- 
is    pertinent:    "Certainly    not,   if    man's    primitive 
condition  were  that  which  the   Higher  Criticism,  in 
spite  of  history  as  well  as  revelation,  is  determined 
it  shall  be.     The  squalid  dweller  in   the   cave,  sur- 
rounded  by  wolves,  and  bones,  and  stone  axes,  and 

159 


l6o  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

hardly  distinguishable  from  his  beastly  companions, 
would  be  the  last  to  be  called,  or  who  would  think 
of  calling  himself,  the  agreeable  one." 

I.  After  his  creation,  Adam  was  placed  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden.  Modern  science  lays  much  stress 
on  environments,  attributing  to  them,  as  much,  if 
not  more  influence  than  to  organism  itself,  in  the 
formation  of  character.  Environments  doubtless 
exert  powerful  influence  also  on  human  career  and 
destiny.  And,  before  detailing  to  us  the  life  of  the 
first  man,  Moses  very  properly  first  describes  his 
surroundings.  He  presents  us  with  three  circles. 
First,  the  earth  in  its  entirety,  in  its  virgin,  un- 
cultivated condition,  waiting  to  be  won  over  to, 
and  subdued  by,  the  intelligence  of  man.  Second, 
a  region  of  country  which  he  calls  Eden,  a  land  of 
delight,  variegated  doubtless  with  hills  and  dales, 
pastures  and  forests.  Within  this  region  man  was 
created.  The  third,  an  inner  circle  yet,  an  enclosed 
park,  called  a  Garden,  into  which  man  was  transported 
after  his  creation. 

In  the  first  paragraph,  describing  man's  formation, 
the  writer  employs  the  past  tense.  In  the  second 
he  uses  the  present,  which  seems  to  hint  that,  in 
the  writer's  time,  the  geography  of  Eden  was  still 
ascertainable.  Into  the  probable  vicinity  of  Eden 
the  researches  of  archaeologists  and  scholars  have  been 
multitudinous  and  protracted.  Seven  localities,  at 
least,  from  North  India  to  North  Europe,  have  been 
ingeniously  advocated.  But  the  two  lands  which 
have  found  most  favour  are  Babylonia  and  Armenia, 
and  of  these  the  balance  of  probability  favours  the 
latter.     Further  on,   the    Cainitcs   are   said   to   have 


MAN    IN    EDEN  l6l 

removed  away  from  Eden  eastward  to  Nod,  justifying 
the  inference  that  the  descendants  of  Seth,  notwith- 
standing the  expulsion  of  the  race  from  the  Garden, 
continued  to  live  in  the  ancestral  land,  of  Eden. 
Therefore,  when  the  deluge  overtook  the  world  of 
ungodly  men,  Noah's  ark  rested  on  the  Ararat 
range  of  mountains,  the  main  watershed  of  Armenia. 
The  point,  however,  on  which  stress  should  be 
laid  is,  that,  according  to  Moses,  man's  original 
environments  were  all  perfect,  his  outward  sur- 
roundings offering  him  no  temptation  to  fall  away 
from  his  integrity.  Eden,  meaning  pleasantness, 
the  Septuagint  rightly  renders  Paradise,  signifying 
the  beautifully  wooded  park,  in  front  of  a  secluded 
Oriental  mansion,  where  grow  all  manner  of  trees 
and  evergreens,  and  where  gambol  all  kinds  of 
animals,  and  where  carol  all  sorts  of  birds — all 
for  the  delight  of  man.  "And  the  Jehovah  God 
planted  a  garden  eastward  in  Eden,  and  there  He 
put  the  man  whom  He  had  formed."  That  this 
Garden  was  abundantly  irrigated,  and  grew  all 
kinds  of  trees,  the  history  testifies.  An  ideal 
home  for  an  innocent  being  !  Whenever  subsequent 
writers  wish  to  set  forth  scenery  of  extreme  beauty, 
and  fertility  of  excessive  abundance,  they  always 
compare  it  to  this  Garden  of  the  Lord's  planting  : 
"  He  will  make  her  wilderness  like  Eden,  and  her 
desert  like  the  garden  of  the  Lord."  "Thou  hast 
been  in  Eden,  the  garden  of  God."  "  This  land, 
which  was  desolate,  is  become  like  the  garden 
of  Eden."  Like  aroma  clinging  to  the  garment 
or  sv/eet  scent  to  the  tresses  of  the  hair,  the 
memory   of    that   happy   state   continues   to    haunt 

II 


1 62  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

humanity  in  all  its  remote  wanderings.  We  have 
never  been  able  to  shake  off  the  fragrance  of  Eden. 

In  the  mythologies  of  the  East  and  of  the  West 
frequent  references  are  made  to  celebrated  gardens 
— to  the  garden  of  Adonis  by  the  Assyrians,  and 
the  garden  of  the  Hesperides  with  its  golden  apples 
by  the  Greeks,  the  entrance  to  which  was  carefully 
guarded  by  mysterious  dragons,  an  echo,  it  would 
seem,  of  the  cherubim  which  guarded  the  gates 
of  Eden.  As  among  these  nations  these  traditions 
are  nothing  more  than  myths,  why,  it  is  asked, 
should  similar  stories  among  the  Hebrews  be 
treated  as  sober,  matter-of-fact  history  ?  The 
question  is  perfectly  legitimate.  But  the  subject 
may  present  itself  in  another  aspect :  are  all  the 
ancient  myths  mere  subjective  fancies,  or  are 
they  embellished  reminiscences  of  the  race  of 
primordial  facts  ?  That  the  drapery  is  woven  out 
of  the  imagination  of  these  nations  is  conceded  ; 
but  does  not  the  manufacture  of  the  gorgeous 
raiment  prove  that  there  was  an  interior  truth  to 
wear  and  uphold  the  raiment  ?  Men  do  not 
make  garments  to  hang  upon  nothing.  These 
mythologies  point  to  a  primeval  truth  ;  the  gardens 
of  Oriental  mythologies  and  classic  poetry  to  a 
real,  veritable  garden  in  the  far-off  past,  near  the 
fount  of  universal  history.  If  truth  is  not  found 
here,  where  is  it  to  be  found?  Are  men  to  be 
for  ever  victims  of  illusions,  pursuing  truth,  but 
never  able  to  overtake  it  ?  God  is  not  an  almighty 
Jester. 

Compare  the  Mosaic  delineation  of  the  pristine 
condition  of  man  with  his  degraded  state  as  pictured 


MAN    IN    EDEN  163 

by  evolutionary  theorists.  In  Genesis  man  is  created 
of  full  stature,  the  image  of  his  Maker,  a  true 
civOpcoTTo^,  with  figure  erect,  and  eyes  turned  sky- 
ward, under  the  fostering  care  of  his  Heavenly 
Parent.  Instead  of  turning  the  newly  formed  and 
inexperienced  human  creature  into  the  open  high- 
land, exposed  to  the  attacks  of  wild  beasts,  to 
contend  with  inferior  but  fleeter  animals  for  a 
morsel  of  food,  He  placed  him  in  an  enclosed 
garden,  adorned  with  trees  for  ornament  and  use. 
How  otherwise  in  the  presence  of  ravenous  brutes 
could  the  permanence  of  the  human  species  be 
guaranteed  ? 

The  environments  were  ideally  perfect.  Poetry 
has  not  been  able  to  pourtray  a  lovelier  condition, 
and  earth  can  furnish  no  apter  simile  than  Paradise 
to  set  forth  the  beatitude  of  heaven  itself.  If 
man  sin,  the  blame  cannot  be  laid  at  the  door 
of  his  Maker  or  to  the  charge  of  his  circumstances. 
On  the  other  hand,  contemplate  his  primitive 
degradation  as  painted  by  the  cunning  hand  of 
Professor  Drummond.  He  sits  at  night  perched 
like  a  monkey  on  the  branches  of  the  primeval 
forest,  forbidding  in  countenance,  covered  with 
hair ;  in  the  daytime  moving  stealthily  about,  some- 
times as  biped,  sometimes  as  quadruped,  and  by 
low-bred  cunning  over-reaching  other  animals  in 
his  search  for  food,  voraciously  devouring  uncooked 
meat, — half-starved,  savage,  repulsive.  How  could 
the  evolutionary  man  fall,  when  there  were  hardly 
lower  abysses  for  him  to  fall  into  ?  Or,  rather,  how 
could  he  help  sinning  in  this  awful,  cruel  struggle 
for   existence?     The   evolutionary  theory   gives   the 


1 64  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

lie  direct  to  the  universal  recollection  of  the  race  of 
a  golden  age  in  the  times  of  old.  Moses,  however, 
depicts  this  golden  age,  or  rather  this  golden  hour, 
in  man's  history  ;  and  in  the  proper  place  pourtrays 
his  degradation,  a  worse  because  a  moral  degrada- 
tion ;  but  he  gives  a  satisfactory  exposition  of  it, 
and  assigns  to  it  an  adequate  moral  cause.  Accord- 
ing to  Moses,  man  became  the  lowest  because  he 
was  the  highest.  Only  the  best  is  capable  of  the 
worst. 

II.  Moses  next  indicates  the  duties  devolving 
upon  Adam  in  his  state  of  innocence  :  "  The  Lord 
God  took  the  man,  and  put  him  into  the  garden 
of  Eden  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it."  "  And  out  of 
the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the 
field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought  them 
to  Adam."  Here  then  are  the  two  great  branches 
of  all  agriculture — the  cultivation  of  plants  and  the 
domestication  of  animals. 

The  first  part  of  Adam's  duty  consisted  in  the 
diligent  "  dressing "  of  the  ground.  God's  primal 
command  to  man  was,  "  Multiply,  and  replenish  the 
earth,  and  subdue  it."  The  virgin  state  of  the  earth 
was  not  that  of  arable  cultivation.  After  the  millions 
of  years,  in  which  her  laws  operated  unmodified 
by  man.  Nature  was  in  a  state  of  comparative 
wildness,  though  not  of  obdurate  refractoriness,  to 
which  she  was  reduced  after  the  introduction  of 
sin.  Man  was  introduced  on  the  scene  with  a  view 
to  "  subdue "  it — i.e.  to  cultivate  the  soil,  to  check 
the  rank  growths,  to  promote  the  development  of 
what  was  useful  and  beautiful.  The  work  began  in 
Paradise.     God  Himself  planted  a  garden  in   Eden, 


MAN    IN   EDEN  165 

as  a  model  to  man  of  what  he  was  to  accomplish 
in  regard  to  the  whole  earth. 

Even  had  man  never  sinned,  he  was  not  destined 
to  remain  always  in  the  first  Garden,  but  to  go 
out  and  make  other  gardens  like  it.  Proper  it 
was  that  he  should  commence  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  in  an  enclosure  not  too  large,  in  the  then 
tractable  state  of  nature,  for  his  own  labour  to 
dress  it,  and  extensive  enough  to  supply  all  the 
physical  wants  of  himself  and  family.  But  as 
population  increased,  mankind  were  to  extend  their 
cultivation  beyond  the  Garden,  to  the  district  called 
Eden,  making  it  also  a  garden,  a  well-cultivated  tract. 
As  the  inhabitants  still  multiplied,  they  were  to 
continue  to  extend  the  area  of  cultivation,  to  reclaim 
waste  lands,  till  gradually  the  whole  earth  would 
be  converted  into  a  fertile  garden,  and  the  desert 
made  to  blossom  as  the  rose.  The  task  of  "sub- 
duing "  was  to  be  continuous,  stretching  out  in 
all  directions,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of 
population.  The  labour  would  neither  be  exhaustive 
nor  go  unrewarded.  As  long  as  man  maintained 
his  normal  relation  to  his  Creator,  the  soil  would 
respond  readily  to  his  cultivation  ;  but  if  man 
entered  on  a  career  of  rebelliousness  against  God, 
Nature  would  divert  to  a  course  of  disobedience  to 
man,  her  subjugation  becoming  more  strenuous  and 
difficult. 

To  the  planting  of  the  Garden  of  Eden  to  be 
a  fit  abode  for  man,  chap,  ii.,  vers.  5  and  6 
probably  refer  :  "In  the  day  the  Lord  God  made 
every  plant  of  the  field  before  it  was  in  the  earth, 
and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it  grew  ;  for  the 


l66  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Lord  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth, 
and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground.  But 
there  went  up  a  mist  from  the  earth,  and  watered 
the  whole  face  of  the  ground."  Bunsen,  Baden- 
Powell,  Driver,  and  others  make  these  statements 
contradictory  of  the  first  chapter,  where  the  prior 
creation  of  vegetable  and  plant  life  is  described.  The 
majority  of  commentators,  however,  limit  their  appli- 
cation to  the  district,  the  history  of  which  is  here 
specially  narrated. 

Take  first  the  Authorised  rendering  as  above. 
According  to  this  the  meaning  is,  that  God  made  the 
universe,  plant  and  herb,  things  great  and  small,  by 
His  word,  in  a  supernatural  way.  The  natural  way 
is  for  plants  and  herbs  to  grow  under  the  influence  of 
sunshine  and  rain,  and  in  response  to  the  "  tilling  "  of 
the  earth  by  man.  But  the  first  plants  and  herbs 
were  created,  when  there  was  no  rain  upon  the  earth, 
and  no  man  to  till  the  ground — an  affirmation  of  the 
supernatural  by  the  denial  of  the  natural. 

Dr.  Jamieson  adopts  another  rendering:  "The 
truth  is,  there  is  no  room  for  speculation  upon  the 
subject,  as  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  historian, 
which  is  rather  obscurely  and  confusedly  given  in  the 
English  Version,  is,  when  rightly  brought  out  from 
the  original  text,  both  clear  and  definite."  After 
referring  to  a  well-known  rule  of  Hebrew  grammar, 
that  every,  followed  by  a  negative,  produces  the  sense 
of  none,  he  continues  :  "If,  then,  we  regard  the  title  or 
superscription  prefixed  to  this  section  as  ending  at 
the  word  '  created,'  conformable  to  the  reading  in  the 
Scptuagint  Version,  and  the  section  as  beginning  with 
the    words    '  in    the     day,'    the    whole    passage    as 


MAN   IN   EDEN  1 67 

rendered  by  Rosenmliller,  De  Wette,  Tuch,  and 
others  will  stand  thus  :  '  These  are  the  generations 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  when  they  were  created. 
In  the  day  when  the  Lord  God  made  earth  and 
heaven,  then  no  plant  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the 
earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  yet  grew;  for  the 
Jehovah  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the 
earth,  and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground. 
But  there  went  up  a  mist  from  the  earth  and  watered 
the  ground.' "  ^ 

The  point  of  the  narrative  seems  to  be  that,  in  that 
particular  spot  where  Eden  was  situated,  new  species 
of  plants  and  trees  were  produced  nearly  contem- 
poraneous with  the  creation  of  man,  for  they  were 
necessary  for  his  sustenance,  and  he  was  necessary 
for  their  cultivation.  To  produce  them  without  him 
would  be  to  consign  them  to  inanition  ;  to  create  him 
without  them  would  be  to  expose  him  to  starvation. 
"  God  does  everything  beautiful  in  his  season." 
Certain  classes  of  plants,  herbs,  and  trees  thrive  in  a 
wild  state  ;  others  only  flourish  under  human  over- 
sight. If  they  be  not  sown  anew  every  year,  they 
will  not  run  wild,  but  will  actually  die  out.  For  their 
existence  they  are  dependent  upon  Divine  creation  ; 
for  their  continuance  they  are  dependent  upon 
human  cultivation.  To  this  class  belong  the  cereals 
and  the  vegetables  requisite  for  the  comfort  of  man. 
It  is  a  singular  coincidence,  indisputably  attested 
by  geologic  science,  that  wheat,  fruit  trees,  certain 
domestic  animals,  and  man  appeared  contempora- 
neously on  the  face  of  the  earth.  What  would  be 
the  good  of  producing  breadcorn  millions,  or  even 
^  Com.y  in  loco. 


1 68  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

hundreds,  of  years  before  man?  To  their  continuous 
growth  man  was  necessary  ;  and  doubtless  to  this 
species  of  plants  and  herbs  the  sacred  historian  refers. 
The  words  plant,  field,  and  grew  do  not  occur  in 
the  first  chapter  at  all.  Grasses  and  w^eeds,  the 
food  of  animals,  thrive  without  cultivation  ;  but  the 
higher  flora  demand  constant  care  and  supervision. 
They  were  not  therefore  produced  till  the  two 
indispensable  conditions  of  their  cultivation  were 
introduced — heavy  dew  to  irrigate  the  soil  and  man 
to  take  the  oversight  of  them.  Singular  also  that, 
through  the  geological  millenniums,  no  perfumes 
were  wasted  on  the  desert  air.  Aromatic  herbs  only 
appeared,  so  to  speak,  in  the  human  period.  Corn 
for  food  and  scents  for  pleasure  mark,  the  advent  of 
man,  the  coming  of  the  king. 

The  second  branch  of  agriculture  is  the  domesti- 
cation of  animals.  Which  of  the  two  branches  is  the 
more  important  it  is  difficult  to  tell.  In  Greek 
mythology  a  controversy  is  reported  to  have  arisen 
between  Athene  (Minerva)  and  Poseidon  (Neptune) 
concerning  their  right  to  give  a  name  to  a  certain 
city.  The  senate  of  the  gods  resolved  to  settle  the 
dispute  by  promising  the  preference  to  whichever  of 
the  two  that  would  give  the  most  valuable  present 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  Thereupon  Poseidon 
struck  the  ground  with  his  trident,  and  immediately 
there  issued  from  the  earth  a  horse.  Athene,  follow- 
ing his  example,  struck  the  earth  with  her  spear,  and 
up  sprang  an  olive  tree.  But  even  then  there  was  a 
difference  of  opinion  which  was  the  more  valuable 
gift — the  olive  or  the  horse,  the  cultivation  of  plants 
or  the  domestication  of  animals.     Without  contradic- 


MAN    IN    EDEN  169 

tion,  these  two  are  the  most  useful  gifts  of  Heaven 
to  mankind.  God  committed  to  man  the  sovereignty 
of  the  animal  creation,  saying  :  "  Have  dominion  over 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and 
over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth." 
This  sovereignty  consists  in  two  things.  First,  it 
confers  on  man  the  right  to  slay  the  creatures  he 
requires  for  his  sustenance.  The  inference  sometimes 
drawn  that  permission  was  not  given  man  to  eat 
meat  till  after  the  Deluge  is  gratuitous.  What  we  do 
not  read  in  the  Bible  is  clearly  imprinted  on  our 
nature — man  is  constituted  a  flesh-eating  creature. 
The  charter  granted  to  Noah  was  only  a  republi- 
cation of  the  Creation  charter,  which  men  by  sin  had 
forfeited.  Second,  this  original  sovereignty  further 
confers  on  man  the  right  to  subordinate  the  animals 
to  his  purposes  and  make  them  his  auxiliaries  in  the 
work  of  cultivation.  They  were  not  "helps  meet" 
for  him,  but  they  were  intended  to  be  helps  all  the 
same,  and  very  valuable  helps  too.  It  was  man's 
prerogative  to  tame,  train,  and  accustom  them  to 
the  yoke. 

Accordingly  the  story  tells  us  that  God  brought  to 
Adam  the  beasts  and  the  fowls  "to  see  what  he 
would  call  them."  In  the  first  chapter  God  bestows 
on  man  the  abstract  right  of  sovereignty  ;  here  He 
confers  it  de  facto.  The  author  takes  for  granted 
that  he  is  writing  for  men  of  common  sense — not  for 
critics  who  exercise  their  ingenuity  to  extract  from 
him  every  species  of  folly.  Where  the  grammar  and 
vocabulary  will  admit  of  more  than  one  construction, 
it  is  our  imperative  duty  to  adopt  the  one  most 
congruous  with  sound  sense  and  the  general  drift  of 


\yO  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

the  passage.  The  history  evidently  does  not  intend 
that  the  ravenous  beasts  of  the  forest,  or  the  wild 
game  of  the  mountains,  were  made  to  pass  before 
Adam  ;  but  only  those  animals  and  birds  gathered 
within  the  Eden  enclosure,  and  fitted  by  their  gentle 
nature  to  become  useful  to  him  in  his  pursuit  of 
agriculture.  As  God  had  stamped  His  image  on 
man,  so  man  was  to  impress  his  likeness  on  the 
world — to  Jiumanise  nature,  to  spiritualise  matter. 
The  animals  and  birds  were  brought  to  him  that  he 
might  enter  on  his  sovereignty,  that  by  naming  them 
he  might  prove  his  superiority  to  them,  and  demon- 
strate his  power  to  reduce  them  to  subjection.  To 
name  implies,  not  the  arbitrary  affixing  of  a  name 
to  nominally  distinguish  one  animal  from  another 
— an  outward  label,  but  to  understand  the  nature,  to 
discern  the  purpose,  and  to  ascertain  the  use.  The 
man  who  names  is  king ;  the  creature  named  is 
subject.  That  law  is  eternal  and  inviolable.  So  far 
as  man  can  name  is  he  king  ;  till  he  can  name,  his 
sovereignty  is  but  nominal.  Ever  since,  the  creation, 
animate  and  inanimate,  has  been  passing  before  man 
to  be  named — that  is  to  say,  to  be  understood  ;  and 
till  you  understand  a  thing  you  cannot  truly  name 
it— you  cannot  classify  it  and  reduce  it  to  service 
in  our  work-a-day  world.  What  is  science?  Only 
nature,  living  and  non-living,  passing  before  man, 
that  man  may  study  it  and  understand  it,  and  give 
its  various  objects  a  name,  and  thereby  exercise  his 
lawful  dominion  over  the  realm  of  nature.  Scientists 
have  made  merry  over  this  Genesis  story  ;  but  viewed 
aright,  it  is  only  the  Hebrew  way  of  describing  the 
first  rudiments  of  natural  history  and  natural  science. 


MAN    IN    EDEN  I7I 

Adam  was  beginning  to  do  in  Eden  what  agri- 
culturalists are  advised  to  do  in  our  own  country — 
to  farm  scientifically  ;  and  this  they  cannot  do  with- 
out understanding  the  nature  of  the  animals  and 
the  quality  of  the  soil  ;  and,  in  proportion  as  they 
understand,  they  will  name. 

III.  Here,  however,  we  are  confronted  with  the 
questions  :  In  what  sense  are  we  to  understand 
that  God  planted  a  garden  in  Eden  ?  Do  the 
words  signify  more  than  general  creation  ?  In  what 
sense  are  we  to  understand  that  God  brought  the 
animals  to  Adam  to  be  named  ?  In  other  words, 
had  the  first  man  the  benefit  of  the  direct  tuition 
of  God?  Did  the  Divine  Being  become  his  friend 
and  instructor?  After  some  hesitation,  I  am  con- 
strained to  return  an  affirmative  answer.  Popular 
theology  is  wont  to  speak  of  God  visiting  the 
Garden,  and  holding  communication,  face  to  face, 
with  Adam,  as  He  afterwards  did  with  Moses ;  and 
popular  theology,  I  believe,  is  right. 

Pause  to  consider  what  this  means.  A  Divine 
theophany  must  be  assumed — that  God,  in  the  form, 
though  not  possibly  in  the  reality,  of  man,  appeared 
to  Adam,  and  undertook  Himself  the  task  of  giving 
him  his  first  lesson  in  the  art  of  living.  The 
foundation  of  the  Old  Testament  theophanies  is 
laid  in  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God. 
Hard  terms  are  often  used  of  the  anthropomorphism 
of  the  Bible,  and  occasionally  theologians  themselves 
indulge  in  epithets  the  reverse  of  complimentary. 
Moses,  however,  clearly  teaches,  and  the  Bible  every- 
where assumes,  the  theomorphism  of  man  ;  and 
the    theomorphism    of  man    involves   the   anthropo- 


172  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

inorphism  of  God.     The  concave  exhibits  the    form 
of  the  convex. 

Holy  Writ  speaks  of  the  Form  of  God,  and  that 
He  took  upon  Him  the  Form  of  man  ;  and  the 
two  Forms,  says  Moses,  are  originally  congruous 
and  correspondent.  That  being  the  case,  the  theo- 
phanics  of  God  do  not  come  upon  the  mind  with 
a  shock  and  a  surprise.  What  nobler  in  the  world 
than  the  human  Form  ?  Do  you  think  it  worthier 
of  Deity  to  appear  in  a  cloud  of  glory,  or  a  sudden 
flash  of  light  after  the  similitude  of  pantomime 
lightnings,  than  in  the  human  form  Divine  ?  We 
must  beware  lest  in  our  anxiety  to  eschew  Anthro- 
pomorphism we  fall  into  downright  Materialism. 
The  human  body  is  the  compendium  of  the  ex- 
cellences of  all  prior  existences.  Men  of  science 
should  be  the  last  to  protest  against  the  appearances 
of  God  in  the  form  of  man.  According  to  their 
own  creed,  it  is  a  form  which  has  taken  untold 
ages  to  build  up  ;  the  utmost  the  earth,  and  perhaps 
the  universe,  after  many  millions  of  years  of  travail, 
has  brought  forth  ;  the  chief  among  ten  thousand 
created  forms,  and  most  of  them  lovely  ;  the  elect 
of  more  creatures  than  the  sand  on  the  seashore, 
that  have  been  destroyed,  age  after  age,  on  purpose 
that  it  might  become  more  perfect.  In  this  human 
form  God  appeared  unto  Adam,  and  initiated  him 
into  the  first  principles  of  civilised  life.  "As  Jehovah 
God  (vers.  15,  16)  is  named  as  the  cstablisher  of 
the  order  of  life,  of  natural  science,  or  of  the 
human  knowledge  of  it  ;  of  marriage  and  of  the 
law  of  the  family  (vers.  21-24);  as  the  judge  and 
founder  of  the  religion  of  the  promise,  and  of  the 


MAN    IN    EDEN  1 73 

moral  conflict  on  the  earth,  of  the  earthly  state  of 
sorrow  and  discipUne  (chap.  iii.  i);  and,  finally,  as 
the  immediate  director  of  human  chastity  and  the 
author  of  human  clothing  (ver.  21), — so  also  here, 
in  the  beginning,  He  is  represented  as  the  first 
Planter,  the  Founder  of  human  culture,  which  is  as 
yet  identical  with  human  cultus  or  worship."  ^ 

It  is  asked.  Is  it  not  degrading  the  Eternal  to 
picture  Him  thus  planting  a  garden,  and  instructing 
man  in  the  first  elements  of  husbandry  ?  I  answer, 
Is  it  more  humiliating  than  to  create  the  chaotic 
mud  ?  More  lowering  than  to  make  the  insect,  the 
toad,  the  reptile,  and  the  rodent  ?  Our  conceptions 
of  what  is  honourable  and  becoming  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  what  is  humiliating  and  dishonouring 
on  the  other,  must  be  formed  by  other  than  the 
conventional  standards  set  up  by  the  European 
nobility.  To  God  nothing  is  lowering  or  dishonour- 
ing, except  the  sinful,  the  immoral.  The  Divine 
condescension  thus  placed  in  the  foreground  of 
human  history,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Old 
Testament,  will  prepare  us  for  that  infinitely  greater 
condescension  at  the  beginning  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, when  God  became  man,  not  in  similitude  but 
in  verity,  and  had  to  learn  the  first  rudiments  of 
human  culture.  In  Genesis  He  is  an  instructor  in 
husbandry  ;  in  the  Gospels  He  is  an  apprentice  to 
carpentry  ! 

Granting  that  God  was  the  teacher,  what  aptitude 

had    man    to   learn?      What    were    the   intellectual 

endowments   with   which    he   began    life  ?      Genesis 

does  not  furnish  us  with  a  direct  answer  ;  yet  data 

^  Lange,  Com.,  171  loco. 


174  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

enough  arc  supplied  here  and  elsewhere  for  us  to 
draw  an  approximately  correct  conclusion. 

Two  extreme  views  have  been  advocated.  Of 
course,  materialistic  evolutionists,  so  far  from  repre- 
senting man  as  "  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels," 
declare  him  to  be  made  but  infinitesimally  higher  than 
the  brutes.  He  was  Jioino  alalus — had  no  language, 
could  not  speak,  had  really  nothing  to  express.  Many 
theologians,  on  the  contrary,  have  exhausted  their 
rich  store  of  elegant  diction  to  pourtray  the  exalted 
condition,  intellectual  and  moral,  in  which  man  was 
created.  Dr.  South,  with  his  stately  eloquence, 
declares  that  Adam  was  "  the  most  splendid  specimen 
of  the  race  the  world  ever  saw,  fair  as  an  angel,  holy 
as  a  seraph,"  that  "  an  Aristotle  was  but  the  rubbish 
of  an  Adam,  and  Athens  but  the  rudiments  of  Para- 
dise." And  Aristotle  himself  teaches  that  man's 
reason,  before  the  Fall,  was,  compared  with  ours, 
as  the  bird  to  the  tortoise.  They  conceive  him 
endowed  with  a  native  intuition,  penetrating  with  a 
lightning  glance  into  the  hidden  secret  of  natural 
objects  and  phenomena,  enabling  him  to  cleave  every 
difficult  problem  right  down  to  its  very  base. 

The  truth  doubtless  lies,  as  usual,  in  the  golden 
mean.  Obviously  at  his  creation  man's  mind  was 
empty  of  all  positive  knowledge.  There  w^as  nothing 
in  the  mind  except  the  mind  itself,  the  innate  truths, 
if  the  expression  may  be  allowed,  inwoven  into  his 
very  texture  ;  and  even  these  had  not  attained  unto 
mental  consciousness.  Knowledge,  in  the  shape  of 
information,  obviously  he  had  not.  The  contents  of 
the  mind  were  nothing ;  but  what  about  the  size 
and  strength    of  the   mind  itself?     Believing,  as  we 


MAN   IN    EDEN  1 75 

do,  that  he  was  the  immediate  creation  of  God,  we 
cannot  refuse  to  believe  that  he  was  enriched  with 
mental  powers  of  the  first  magnitude ;  and  that, 
exempt  from  the  obscuration  of  sin,  he  acquired 
knowledge  with  a  rapidity  and  ease  unknown  to  the 
most  opulently  gifted  of  his  posterity.  In  capacity, 
I  doubt  not,  he  equalled,  probably  surpassed,  the 
most  brilliant  of  his  descendants. 

The  same  truth  holds  good  on  a  smaller  scale  of 
the  fossil  men.  Their  craniums  incontestably  prove 
that,  though  in  the  amount  of  knowledge  they, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  were  inferior  to  modern 
races,  their  brain-power  was  not  an  atom  less. 
Judged  by  capacity,  not  by  the  amount  of  their 
information,  they  will  bear  favourable  comparison 
with  men  who  lead  the  vanguard  of  modern  arts 
and  sciences.  And  in  mental  capacity,  our  belief 
in  Adam's  supernatural  formation  compels  us  to 
place  him  in  the  foremost  rank.  Add  to  this  his 
sinlessness  ;  and  his  facility  in  the  acquisition  of 
knowledge  and  the  inerrancy  of  his  conclusions 
form  an  inevitable  corollary.  Given  a  teacher  of 
such  consummate  mastery  as  God,  and  a  pupil  of 
such  quick  receptivity  as  Adam,  and  his  strides 
in  knowledge  must  have  been  beyond  our  ability, 
limited  from  within  and  without,  to  adequately 
realise. 

Which  language  was  the  medium  of  communi- 
cation between  God  and  him,  and  between  him 
and  Nature,  may  not  be  determined  in  our  present 
state  of  knowledge.  But  suppose  it  was  Hebrew, 
which  our  fathers  believed  had  strong  claims  to 
priority,   and    scholars    can   now   hear    the   distinct 


1/6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

echo  of  that  first  man's  words,  and  discern  in  them 
the  working  of  his  mind.  How  hard  to  invent 
language,  to  create  a  new  word  !  And  when  a 
new  word,  hke  "  agnosticism,"  is  introduced  into 
a  language  and  finds  a  home  there,  it  is  but  a 
new  combination  of  old  vocables.  How  difficult  to 
create  a  new  root !  Adam's  mind,  however,  threw 
out  new  words  like  sparks  from  the  anvil  ;  but 
we  should  not  forget  that  the  Almighty  it  was 
^\•ho  was  wielding  the  hammer.  According  to 
Moses,  Adam  was  not  a  Jionio  alaluSy  a  non- 
speaking  man,  but  was  creatively  gifted  with  the 
faculty  of  speech.  This  power  God  did  not  allow 
to  lie  dormant,  but  adopted  measures  to  draw  it 
out  into  healthful  exercise.  The  immediate  acquisi- 
tion of  knowledge  is  to  us  a  mystery  ;  yet  the 
possibility  of  mastering  a  language,  and  of  speaking 
it,  without  undergoing  the  painful  drudgery  of 
learning,  is  demonstrated  to  Christian  believers  by 
the  miracle  of  the  Pentecost,  when  twelve  unlearned 
apostles  were  inspired  to  preach  in  new  tongues,  of 
the  existence  of  which,  much  more  of  their  grammar, 
they  were  previously  in  absolute  ignorance.-^ 

Professor  Drummond  has  devoted  the  fifth  chapter 
of  his  well-known  book  to  prove  that  man  was 
at  first  speechless :  "If  evolution  is  the  method 
of  creation,  the  faculty  of  speech  was  no  sudden 
gift.  .  .  .  Before  Homo  sapiens  was  evolved,  he  must 
necessarily  have  been  preceded  for  a  longer  or  shorter 
period  by  Homo  alalus^  the  not-speaking  man.  .  .  . 
The    alternative    theory    of  the    origin   of   language, 

'  May  I  refer  the  reader  for  a  discussion  of  the  miracle 
of  the  Gift  of  Tongues  to  my  Studies  in  the  Acts? 


MAN   IN    EDEN  I^^ 

universally  held  until  lately,  and  expressed  in  so 
many  words,  even  by  the  eighth  edition  of  the 
EncyclopcBdia  Britannica,  that  'our  first  parents  re- 
ceived it  by  immediate  inspiration,'  has  the  same 
relation  to  exact  science  as  the  view  that  the  world 
was  made  in  six  days  by  direct  creative  fiat 
But  to  make  Speech  and  fit  it  into  a  man,  after  all 
IS  said,  is  less  miraculous  than  to  fit  a  man  to  make 
Speech." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Professor  begins  this 
interesting  paragraph  with  an  "if."     All  hinges  on 
that    "if."     Mf"    Professor    Drummond's    theory   of 
evolution   be  right,  then   the   question  of  the  origin 
of  language  is  settled  in   the   manner  he  describes  • 
but  "if"  his  theory  be  wrong,  then  his  opinions  on 
the   origin    of  language  are   "airy  nothings."     It   is 
simply  a  question  whether   Moses  or  Drummond  is 
right.      According    to    the   latter's    theory,    Nature 
having  once  been  started,  is  self-contained,  works  out 
Its   results    slowly,  and  brooks   no  interference  from 
without.     All  its  wonders  are  slow  growths,  and  not 
"something  quick."     But  our  argument  all  along  has 
been  that  Nature  does  receive  assistance  from  with- 
out,  and    that,  when    that   assistance   is  vouchsafed, 
Nature  hastens  her  paces  and  performs  "  something 
quick."      God    created  animal  life— it   was    a  super^ 
natural  act ;  not  a  gradual  growth,  but  "  something 
quick."       In     his     Natural    Law    in    the    Spiritical 
World,   Professor  Drummond    lays   much    stress   on 
the  scientific    truth   that   out    of  the  non-living   the 
living  cannot  come ;  hence  the  necessity  of  Regene- 
ration   by  the  Spirit.       But   in   his    Ascent  of'^Man 
this   "natural   law"   is   conveniently  dropped.     God 

12 


178  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

created  mental  life — it  was  a  supernatural  act  ;  not 
Nature  evolving  man  by  her  own  unaided  resources, 
but,  assisted  by  God  and  under  the  Divine  impulse, 
she  did  "  something  quick,"  something  she  could  not 
do  of  herself  throughout  all  the  cycles  of  time.^ 

According  to  Genesis,  the  man  God  produced  was 
not  a  savage,  dwelling  in  the  terrible  primeval  forest, 
scrambling  among  brutes  hardly  lower  than  himself 
for  a  precarious  living,  but  a  civilised  being,  richly 
equipped  with  all  mental  endowments.  "  To  make 
Speech  and  fit  it  into  a  man,  after  all  is  said,  is  less 
miraculous  than  to  fit  a  man  to  make  Speech." 
Were  that  the  only  alternative — either  speech  for 
man  or  man  for  speech — Professor  Drummond  would 
be  right.  But  the  theological  view  includes  both. 
The  man  of  Mosaic  theology  was  much  fitter  to 
make  speech  than  the  savage  of  evolution.  Accord- 
ing to  Moses,  God  fitted  man  to  make  speech,  and 
qualified  him  more  abundantly  than  Drummond  will 
admit.  On  the  other  hand,  He  fitted  speech  for 
man  :  instead  of  letting  man  grope  in  the  dark  to 
construct  a  vocabulary.  He  took  him  at  once  into 
fellowship  with  Himself — He  spoke  to  man,  and 
encouraged  man  to  speak  back,  so  that,  from  the 
outset,  there  was  intelligent  intercourse.  Even  on 
the  score  of  breadth  of  view,  the  Bible  far  transcends 
the  onesided  theories  of  human  science.  God  made 
Adam  confront  the  animal  creation  on  purpose  to 
excite  within  him  the  power  of  thought — thought 
being  the  only  lawful  sceptre  of  man's  kingship— 
and  thought  always  strives  for  utterance  in  articulate 
speech. 

'  See  Dr.  Watts'  Ascent  of  Maji  Examined. 


MAN   IN    EDEN  1 79 

God  did  not  give  Adam  a  language  ready-made, 
as  the  Professor  imagines  we  believe,  with  grammar 
and  dictionary  complete  ;  but  He  started  him  on 
the  right  track,  and  what  was  thus  begun  under 
Divine  superintendence  Adam  evolved  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  of  mind.  The  supernatural  here, 
as  elsewhere,  is  only  the  beginning  of  the  natural. 
It  is  supernatural  only  in  respect  of  what  precedes  ; 
it  is  the  true  natural  in  respect  of  what  follows. 
God  started  the  machinery  of  speech  by  direct 
intercourse  with  man ;  then  man  was  left  to  develop 
language  in  strict  accordance  with  psychological 
laws.  But  how  could  man  thus  "  quickly "  acquire 
mastery  of  speech  ?  Whether  it  was  quickly  or 
slowly  I  cannot  tell.  But  we,  who  believe  in  the 
supernatural  Gift  of  Tongues  in  the  second  chapter 
of  the  Acts,  cannot  on  the  score  of  incomprehen- 
sibleness  refuse  credence  to  the  supernatural  Gift 
of  Speech  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis.  The 
supernatural  always  is  incomprehensible.  Beyond 
the  circle  of  light  there  is  always  a  larger  circle  of 
darkness. 


CHAPTER    VII 

UNITY  AND  ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN 

WHAT  was  the  length  of  the  interval  between 
the  creation  of  Adam  and  that  of  Eve  ?  The 
story  furnishes  no  answer.  Those  who  adopt  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  six  days  are  constrained 
to  crowd  all  the  events  of  the  second  chapter  into 
a  few  hours  in  the  evening  of  the  sixth  day.  The 
creation  of  Adam,  his  translation  into  the  Garden, 
the  naming  of  the  animals,  the  deep  sleep  which  fell 
upon  him,  and  the  extraction  of  the  woman  from 
his  wounded  side,  followed  each  other  in  rapid  suc- 
cession, the  whole  process  extending  over  only  a  few 
hours.  But  those  who  understand  the  term  "day" 
in  the  narrative  as  signifying  an  indefinite  period 
are  under  no  necessity  to  thus  crowd  events  of  the 
greatest  import  into  a  few  fleeting  hours.  Divine 
procedure  is  never  characterised  by  undue  haste. 
Reason  postulates  a  considerable  period.  Time  was 
required  for  Adam  to  possess  his  soul  in  patience,  to 
acquire  self-control,  and  to  have  his  consciousness 
awakened  into  healthful  activity.  The  story  shows 
God  holding  fellowship  with  him,  instructing  him  in 
his  duties,  spiritual  no  doubt  as  well  as  earthly  ;  and 
the  improbability  is  great  that  God  would  throw 
the  newly  made  creature  into  a  state  of  unnecessary 

i8o 


UNITY   AND  ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN  l8l 

agitation  and  excitement.  Leisure  was  given  the 
man  to  survey  his  inheritance,  to  study  his  surround- 
ings, to  ascertain  his  longitude  and  latitude  on  the 
ocean  of  being  upon  which  he  had  been  suddenly 
launched.  Weeks  may  have  transpired,  probably  did 
transpire,  during  which  he  was  under  the  immediate 
tutorship  of  his  Maker,  being  initiated  into  the  truths 
and  rites  of  religion,  and  learning  the  duties 
devolving  upon  him  as  the  sovereign  lord  of  the 
terrestrial  creation,  and  gradually  exercising  his 
organs  of  speech,  and  acquiring  mastery  over  the 
principles  of  language. 

At  the  termination  of  this  period  of  solitariness, 
except  for  the  colloquies  between  him  and  his 
Maker,  "  the  Lord  God  brought  to  him  the  beasts  of 
the  field  and  the  fowls  of  the  air  " — his  companions 
in  the  Garden,  whose  habits  and  characters  had 
formed  the  objects  of  his  close  scrutiny — to  test  his 
knowledge,  to  bring  his  observations  to  a  practical 
focus,  and  to  excite  in  him  a  healthy  desire  for 
natural  science,  which  then  was  synonymous  with 
natural  religion.  That  God  demanded  of  His  creature 
to  invent  appropriate  names  for  the  various  animals, 
names  which  would  not  be  arbitrary  signs  but 
accurate  indices  to  their  inner  natures,  at  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  without  opportunity  for  observation 
and  reflection,  runs  counter  to  all  the  principles  of 
sound  sense.  The  invention  of  an  appropriate  nomen- 
clature, applicable  to  the  animal  world,  was  doubt- 
less the  culminating  point  of  a  previous  course  of 
instruction. 

The  termination  of  one  course  was  preparatory 
for  the  commencement  of  another  :   *'  And  the  Lord 


1 82  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

God   said,    It   is    not  good  that  the  man  should  be 
alone.     I  will  make  him  an  help  meet  for  him  " — his 
counterpart;  not  like  in  likeness,  but  like  in  differ- 
ence.    As  God  is  a  Social  Being,  so  man,  fashioned 
in    His    image,   was    intended    for    society.      There- 
fore   the    "  not   good "  is    privative,  not   positive ;    it 
is  the  defect  of  incompleteness,  not  the  imperfection 
of  make  or  ideal.     The  continuance  of  this  privative 
state   would    eventuate    in    hurtful    results.      Conse- 
quently   God    prepares    man    for   the   consummation 
of  his   creation.     By  waking  within  him,  not  a  lust- 
ful, but   intelligent,   desire   for   human    intercourse — 
the  germ  of  what  was  afterwards  to  grow  into  the 
w^hite    flower  of  pure,   holy  love — He  took   him,   as 
is    His    wont    with    rational    creatures,    into    active 
partnership  with  Himself     As  the  animals  and  birds 
passed   before  him,  each  fitted  to   be   a   companion 
to  the  other,   the   question    inevitably   arose   in   his 
mind,    possibly   to    his    lips,    for   innocence    always 
speaks  to  itself.   Why  was  he  an  exception?     Why 
was  he  a  singular  among   all   the  duals  of  nature  ? 
A     sense     of    separateness     stole     over     him,     and 
simultaneously  awoke  in  his  breast  a  keen  yearning 
for  mutual  intercourse.     The  sense  of  deficiency  having 
been   excited,  God  could   now  proceed  to  meet  the 
want,    for   the    law   of  supply  and   demand  rules  in 
the    Kingdom   of   God   as   well    as  in  the    realm    of 
commerce.      Adam    having    been    created    a   moral 
creature,   endowed    with    free   will,    God    would    not 
without   his   passive    consent  even   provide  him  with 
a  "  help  meet  " — so  jealous   is    He  of  the  liberty  of 
His    creature.     Now    that     the    longing    is    roused, 
the  satisfaction  of  his  need  follows. 


UNITY  AND   ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  1 83 

"  The  Lord  God  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon 
Adam,  and  he  slept."  It  is  no  ordinary,  but  a  deep 
sleep  from  the  Lord,  wherein  all  the  bodily  members 
and  organs,  losing  sensation,  became  practically 
functionless.  The  word  is  used  in  other  passages 
(Gen.  XV.  12;  i  Sam.  xxvi.  12)  to  indicate  that 
kind  of  sleep  in  which  supernatural  dreams  and 
visions  are  vouchsafed.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is 
invariably  rendered  eKcnaai<^,  a  trance,  wherein  the 
mind  stands,  as  it  were,  out  of  the  body,  more 
wakeful  in  proportion  to  the  profoundness  of  the 
physical  sleep,  and  clearly  apprehending  the  process 
going  on.  Hence  the  ancient  tradition  among  the 
Hebrew  people,  recorded  by  Josephus,  that  the 
"  whole  scene  of  the  formation  of  Eve  was  visible 
to  the  mental  eye  of  Adam."  While  Adam  was 
thus  asleep,  in  a  kind  of  hypnotic  trance,  his  body 
insensible  to  pain,  ''  the  Lord  God  took  one  of 
his  ribs " — according  to  the  Targum  of  Jonathan, 
the  thirteenth  from  the  right  side ! — "  and  closed 
up  the  flesh  instead  thereof;  and  the  rib  which 
the  Lord  God  had  taken  from  man  builded  He  a 
woman,  and  brought  her  unto  the  man."  The  story, 
doubtless,  sounds  strange  in  our  ears,  and  though 
we  have  read  it  scores  of  times  its  weirdness  never 
diminishes. 

In  this  language  many  see  only  a  figurative 
method  of  setting  forth  the  truth  that  woman  is 
of  the  same  essence  as  man.  What  we  call  the 
essence,  the  ancients  styled  the  bone.  Welsh  people 
still  speak  of  the  marrow  of  a  subject.  No  doubt 
there  is  much  truth  in  this  ;  but  it  is  not  the  whole 
truth.      Woman   was   in    a    mysterious   way    taken 


1 84  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

out  of  man,  so  that  man  and  woman  were  an 
arithmetical  unity.  How  was  she  taken  ?  I  can- 
not tell  ;  it  was  a  miracle,  and  miracles  are  not 
explicable,  else  they  would  not  be  miracles.  We 
must  remember  that  we  are  moving  in  the  region 
of  the  supernatural. 

Irrev^erent  scoffers  have  pronounced  the  whole 
transaction  unutterably  ridiculous ;  many  are  the 
witticisms  bandied  about  at  its  expense.  But  revolve 
the  matter  well  in  your  minds.  What  better  sub- 
stitute have  you  or  they  to  offer  ?  Women  are 
here  ;  the  first  woman  was  formed  somehow.  How  ? 
To  build  her  out  of  clay,  as  Adam,  in  popular 
theology,  was  created,  is  perfectly  conceivable,  and 
that  probably  is  the  method  human  reason  would 
have  suggested.  But  is  to  make  her  out  of  mud 
a  more  respectable  way  than  to  form  her  out  of 
flesh  ?  Is  the  building  of  her  out  of  moistened 
dust  a  method  more  honourable  and  worthier  the 
Divine  than  to  make  her  out  of  the  bone  of  the 
man  to  whom  she  was  to  be  indissolubly  joined 
in  the  holy  estate  of  matrimony  ?  I  trow  not.  Or 
take  the  modern  evolutionary  view,  that  woman 
came  out  of  the  gorilla  or  chimpanzee — do  you 
mend  matters  ?  Is  not  the  Divine  evolution  of 
woman  out  of  man  quite  as  honourable  as  her  un- 
divine  evolution  out  of  a  monkey?  Aye,  more 
reasonable  on  a  priori  grounds  ;  and  more  reason- 
ableness is  an  evidence  of  greater  plausibility,  unless 
facts  to  the  contrary  be  forthcoming,  which  here 
is  not  the  case. 

Prompted    by  unprofitable  ingenuity,   many  good 
and    able   men    have  speculated    as   to  the  physical 


UNITY   AND   ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  1 85 

condition  of  man  in  his  state  of  loneliness.  Jacob 
Bohme  and  the  thcosophists  generally  hold  that  he 
was  androgynous,  and  had  the  mystic  power  of 
self-propagation.  Farther  back  we  find  Maimonides, 
the  most  philosophic  expounder  of  Judaism,  strongly 
supporting  the  same  view,  that  "  Adam  was  created 
man  and  woman  at  the  same  time,  having  two  faces 
turned  in  two  opposite  directions,  and  that  during 
a  stupor  the  Creator  separated  Havvah  [Eve],  his 
feminine  half,  from  him,  in  order  to  make  of  her 
a  distinct  person."  That,  it  appears,  was  the 
rabbinical  exposition  of  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration ;  consequently,  some  Christian  divines 
believe  that  to  this  view  the  Lord  Jesus  referred 
when  speaking  of  man  and  woman  as  at  their 
creation  of  "  one  flesh."  Remarkable  that  this  was 
the  prevalent  view  among  the  most  advanced  nations 
of  antiquity,  and  the  view  expounded  by  Plato  in 
the  Banquet'.  "In  the  beginning  there  were  three 
.sexes  among  men,  not  only  the  two  which  we  still 
find  at  this  time,  male  and  female,  but  yet  a  third, 
partaking  of  the  nature  of  each,  which  has  dis- 
appeared, leaving  only  its  name  behind.  In  fact, 
the  Androgyn  existed  then  in  name  and  in  reality, 
being  a  mixture  of  the  male  and  female  sexes, 
though  to-day  the  name  is  only  used  as  a  reproach.  .  .  . 
Now,  said  Jupiter,  I  will  divide  [men]  into  two.  .  .  . 
Now  when  their  nature  had  been  bisected,  each 
half  beheld  with  a  longing  its  other  self  " — hence  con- 
jugal love.  Lenormant  evidently  adopts  this  view: 
"Following  our  Vulgate  Version,  which  agrees  in 
this  with  the  Greek  Version  of  the  Septuagint,  we 
are   in    the   habit   of  stating   that   according  to  the 


1 86  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Bible  the  first  woman  was  made  of  a  rib  taken 
from  Adam's  side.  Nevertheless,  there  is  serious 
reason  to  doubt  the  exactness  of  this  interpretation. 
The  word  qcla  used  here  signifies  in  all  other 
passages  of  the  Bible  where  we  meet  with  it,  'side,' 
and  not  '  rib.'  Philologically,  then,  the  most 
probable  translation  of  the  text  of  Genesis  is  : 
Yahvch  Elohim  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon 
the  man,  and  he  slept ;  He  took  one  of  his  sides, 
and  closed  up  the  place  with  flesh.  And  Yahveh 
Elohim  formed  the  side  which  He  had  taken  from 
man  into  woman,  and  He  led  her  to  the  man.  .  .  . 
So  much  for  the  account  in  the  Jehovist  document  ; 
in  the  Elohist,  we  have,  in  the  first  place,  '  Elohim 
created  man  in  His  image  ;  .  .  .  male  and  female 
created  He  them.'  The  use  of  the  plural  pronoun 
seems  at  first  sight  to  suggest  the  notion  of  a  pair 
of  two  distinct  individuals.  But  farther  on  this 
pronoun  seems,  on  the  contrary,  to  apply  to  the 
nature  of  a  double  being,  which,  being  male  and 
female,  constituted  a  single  Adam.  '  Male  and 
female  created  He  them,  and  He  blessed  them,  and 
named  their  name  Adam.'  The  text  says  Adam, 
and  not  Jiadddni  with  the  article,  and  the  following 
verse  proves  that  the  word  here  is  taken  as  an 
appellation,  a  proper  name,  and  not  as  a  general 
designation  of  the  species."  ^ 

But  why  this  futile  and  vain  theorising?  Why 
not  accept  the  unvarnished  tale  in  its  simple  lyric 
meaning  ?  The  teaching  of  Moses  is,  that  woman 
was  made,  not  naturally  but  supernaturally,  out  of 
man.  Do  we  not  meet  in  the  New  Testament  with 
'  Begi7inings  of  Histo7-y,  pp.  63-5. 


UNITY  AND  ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  1 8/ 

Its  significant  counterpart— man  made,  not  naturally 
but  supernaturally,  out  of  woman  ? — "  And  the 
angel  answered  and  said  unto  her,  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest 
shall  overshadow  thee  :  therefore  also  that  Holy  Thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God."  "  In  the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  His  Son, 
made  of  a  woman."  ^  Those  who  believe  in  the  Man 
made  of  a  woman  experience  no  difficulty  in  giving 
credence  to  the  story  that  woman  was  made  out  of 
man.  Both  are  miracles,  fitting  counterparts  one 
of  another. 

Waking  out  of  his  sleep,  and  beholding  his  other 
self,  Adam  rapturously  exclaimed  :  "  This,  now,  this 
at  last,  this  is  what  I  longed  for,  bone  of  my  bone, 
flesh  of  my  flesh  ;  she  shall  be  called  Woman,  because 
she  was  taken  out  of  Man."  It  is  an  exclamation 
of  gladsome  surprise  at  the  realisation  at  last  of  his 
desires.  Dr.  Pye  Smith  renders  it :  "  This  is  the 
hit."  "And  though  such  a  translation,"  adds  he, 
"  may  appear  strange,  and  even  vulgar,  it  appears 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  rigorous  fidelity. 
The  word  properly  means  a  smart,  bold,  successful 
stroke,  and  is  used  to  signify  hitting  the  precise  time 
of  any  action  or  requirement.  In  this  first  and 
primitive  instance,  it  is  equivalent  to  saying.  This 
is  the  very  thing  that  hits  the  mark,  this  reaches 
what  was  desired."  The  joy  reveals  the  sense  of 
loneliness  he  before  experienced  ;  and  when  the 
vacant  niche  in  the  heart  was  suddenly  occupied,  in 
the  native  simplicity  of  spotless  innocence  he  gave 
expression  to  his  gladness  in  an  abrupt  ejaculation  : 
^  Luke  i.  35  ;  Gal.  iv,  4. 


1 88  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

"This  is  it.  She  shall  be  called  Isha,  for  she  was 
taken  out  of  Ish."  Some  think  that  they  see  here 
the  first  birth  of  poetry.  Probably  ;  love  is  always 
singing. 

Thus  far  the  first  man  has  been  uniformly  styled 
Adam,  or  tJie  Adam,  according  to  whether  man 
generic  or  specific  is  intended.  Now,  however,  a 
new  term  is  introduced — IsJi  ;  wherefore,  woman 
is,  in  the  feminine,  called  Isha.  Here  arises  the 
interesting  question,  Seeing  IsJi  and  IsJia  are  Hebrew, 
in  which  language  did  Adam  speak?  It  is  a 
question  around  which  much  human  interest  spon- 
taneously gathers,  for  we  would  much  like  to  know 
the  caressing  words  which  Adam  first  addressed  to 
his  wife,  the  language  in  which  they  conversed. 

As  hand  in  hand  they  passed,  the  loveliest  pair 
That  ever  since  in  love's  embraces  met ; 
Adam,  the  g-oodliest  man  of  men  since  born, 
His  sons  ;   the  fairest  of  her  daughters,  Eve.^ 

Havernick  writes  :  "  Some  have  urged  that  these 
\isJi  and  is]id\  and  other  names  need  not  be  con- 
sidered original,  as  they  may  have  been  translated 
into  the  Hebrew.  But  that  the  author  at  least 
regarded  them  as  original  Hebrew  words,  and  did 
not  permit  to  himself  any  meddling  with  them, 
appears  from  the  following  considerations  :  (i)  The 
etymologies  adduced  are  opposed  to  such  an  opinion, 
inasmuch  as  the  given  interpretations  of  the  proper 
names  are  intelligible  only  on  the  supposition  that 
these  words  themselves  are  Hebrew.  These  names, 
with  their  meanings,  form  an  essential  clement  in  the 

•  Milton,  Book  iv,,  p.  98 


UNITY   AND   ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  1 89 

history,  and  hence  the  credibility  of  the  latter  stands 
intimately  connected  with  that  of  the  name  and  its 
signification.  (2)  Where  names  had  been  altered  or 
translated,  we  find  the  practice  of  noting  this  care- 
fully observed  in  Genesis  (chaps,  xiv.  7,  8,  xxiii.  19, 
xxviii.  19);  and  from  this  we  may  infer  that  the 
other  proper  names  are  conscientiously  retained  in 
the  Hebrew  idiom  ;  otherwise  analogy  would  have 
led  to  the  name  which  had  been  translated  into 
Hebrew  being  given  in  its  original  form." 

One's  sympathies  naturally  side  with  the  grand 
old  Hebrew,  and  historically  it  has  many  precedent 
claims  over  other  languages.  One  speech  prevailed 
down  to  the  Deluge ;  that  speech  was  transmitted 
to  the  new  world  by  Noah  and  his  sons,  which 
continued  to  prevail  to  the  Babel  confusion  of 
tongues.  One  would  fain  believe  that  this  primitive 
language  was  preserved  in  the  line  of  Heber,  and 
transmitted  through  Abraham  to  the  Israelites.  But 
this  pious  opinion,  once  fondly  cherished  by  many- 
learned  men,  seems  destined  to  be  dissolved  in  the 
crucible  of  philological  science.  As  is  well  known, 
one  of  the  striking  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  is 
its  three-letter  roots,  a  phenomenon  wholly  alien  to 
all  languages  outside  the  Semitic  group.  Of  late, 
attempts  have  been  made  to  trace  the  three-letter  to 
two-letter  roots  ;  and  the  success,  which  has  attended 
these  researches,  has  weakened  the  belief  that  Hebrew 
was  the  original  language,  and  engendered  a  faint 
hope  that,  underneath  the  present  accretions,  the 
primitive  substratum  will  yet  be  found. 

I.  In  this  original  institution  of  marriage,  the 
sacred  indissolubleness  of  the  union  is  clearly  incul- 


190  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

cated,  the  standard  of  marital  chastity  and  domestic 
peace  being  held  aloft  in  the  forefront  of  human 
history.  "  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish 
the  earth,  and  subdue  it,"  constituted  the  charter  God 
granted  to  the  first  human  pair. 

This  injunction  contemplates  the  distribution  of 
the  human  species  all  over  the  world,  and  as  we  look 
round  about  us  to-day  through  all  the  zones,  "from 
Greenland's  icy  mountains  to  India's  coral  strand," 
we  find  no  region  uninhabited  by  man.  Beyond  all 
other  creatures,  in  other  respects  stronger  than  he, 
he  possesses  powers  to  adjust  himself  to  his  environ- 
ments, which  make  him  always  and  everywhere  the 
master  of  the  situation — the  creator,  not  the  creature, 
of  circumstances.  This  universal  distribution  of  the 
human  race  is  a  phenomenon  unique  in  the  animal 
kingdom.  Most  plants  when  transplanted,  most 
animals  when  deported,  from  the  land  of  their 
nativity,  gradually  droop  and  die.  Beyond  certain 
perfectly  definable  climatic  belts  they  will  not  prosper 
and  thrive.  The  anthropoid  apes,  for  instance,  the 
animals  whose  configuration  bears  the  strongest 
resemblance  to  the  human  frame,  are  all  confined  to 
the  tropical  area.  They  lack  the  hardy  endurance 
and  the  equilibrating  capabilities  of  human  kind. 
But  man's  distribution  is  co-extensive  with  the  globe. 
He  lives,  labours,  and  multiplies  on  the  five  con- 
tinents, gladly  braves  the  rigours  and  severities 
of  the  Frigid  Zone,  and  triumphantly  defies  the 
sweltering  heat  of  equatorial  climes.  "  Those  other 
animals,"  writes  Professor  Macalister,  "  which,  like 
the  rat,  have  spread  over  large  tracts  of  the  globe, 
are   characterised  by  an   early  maturity,  a  capacity 


UNITY  AND   ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN  I91 

of  feeding  upon  almost  any  form  of  food,  and  a 
rapid  rate  of  multiplication.  Man  presents  us  with 
characteristics  in  all  respects  the  most  diverse  from 
these  :  he  has  the  longest  period  of  helpless  infancy 
of  any  animal,  and  is  slow  in  attaining  maturity 
(one-fourth  of  his  life,  at  least  twenty  years,  having 
passed  before  his  full  growth  is  perfected) ;  he  is 
also  able  to  use  only  a  limited  number  of  substances 
in  their  natural  conditions  as  food.  Mankind  also 
multiply  at  a  slow  rate  ;  thus,  while  within  the  past 
fifty  years,  forty-five  persons  have  descended  from 
a  single  pair  of  royal  parents  in  Britain,  in  the 
same  period  of  time  one  pair  of  rats  would,  at  their 
ordinary  rate  of  increase,  have  had  a  progeny  of  at 
least  as  great  numerically  as  the  whole  population 
of  England.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  all  these  dis- 
abilities, man  has,  by  his  own  exertion,  become  a 
cosmopolite." 

Whilst  marriage  is  thus  on  the  one  hand  for  the 
sake  of  the  race,  on  the  other  it  is  intended  for 
the  discipline  and  enrichment  of  the  individual  life. 
By  love  matrimony  is  elevated  to  the  region  of 
the  spirit,  and  becomes  essentially  ethical.  Without 
love  marriage  is  mere  simulacrum,  nothing  more 
than  a  civil  contract,  on  the  low  level  of  a  com- 
mercial bargain.  But  by  love  it  is  ennobled  and 
transfigured,  and  becomes  symbolical  of  the  deeper 
verities  of  the  higher  life.  "  This  is  a  great  mystery  ; 
but  of  Christ  and  the  Church  I  speak."  As  the  same 
law  rounds  the  dewdrop  that  determines  the  circle 
of  the  sun,  so  the  principle  of  marriage  is  funda- 
mentally the  same  as  that  of  the  mystic  union 
between    Christ    and    believers,  the    Church  having 


192  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

proceeded  supernaturally  from  His  bleeding  side 
as  the  woman  proceeded  supernaturally  from  the 
wounded  side  of  her  husband. 

Marriage  being  thus  physical  and  spiritual,  the 
union  should  remain  unimpared  till  dissolved  in 
death.  "  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife,  and 
they  shall  be  one  flesh."  Whether  these  words  be 
the  remark  of  Adam  or  the  inspired  comment  of 
Moses  on  the  institution  of  marriage,  as  is  the 
more  probable  by  the  conjunction  "  therefore," — his 
usual  mode  of  introducing  his  own  observations, — 
their  far-reaching  significance  is  equally  manifest. 
The  inspired  comment,  I  said,  because  in  the  New 
Testament  the  words  are  ascribed  to  God  Himself. 
Listen  to  the  Saviour's  exposition  of  this  Mosaic 
truth  :  "  The  Pharisees  also  came  unto  Him,  tempting 
Him,  and  saying  unto  Him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man 
to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?  And  He 
answered  and  said  unto  them.  Have  ye  not  read, 
that  He  which  made  them  at  the  beginning  made 
them  male  and  female,  and  said,  For  this  cause 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife :  and  they  twain  shall  be  one 
flesh?  Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain,  but 
one  flesh.  What  therefore  God  has  joined  together, 
let  no  man  put  asunder.  They  say  unto  Him, 
Why  did  Moses  then  command  to  give  a  writing 
of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away  ?  He  said 
unto  them,  Moses  because  of  the  hardness  of  your 
hearts  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives  :  but 
from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.  And  I  say 
unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except 


UNITY  AND   ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  193 

it  be  for  fornication,  and  shall  marry  another,  com- 
mitteth  adultery  :  and  whoso  marrieth  her  which  is 
put  away  doth  commit  adultery  "  (Matt.  xix.  3-9). 

Thus   there   are   traceable    in    the   history   of   the 
ordinance    of    marriage    three    periods.       The    first 
when  the  union  was  inviolable— the  law  as  instituted 
in  the  time  of  man's  innocence.     The  second,  follow- 
ing  upon    man's   transgression,   when    God    had    to 
relax  the  law  of  matrimonial  morality.     The  principle 
in   virtue   of  which   this    was    permissible  is   known 
in  theology  as  that   of  accommodation.     You  apply 
it  to  the  sick.     You  do  not  require  the  same  amount 
of   work    nor    demand   the    same    high   standard   of 
excellence  from  the  infirm,  the  aged,  and  the  decrepit, 
as   you   do    from  those  whose   health   is  robust  and 
limbs  are  athletic.     So  when  mankind  fell,  and  lusts 
grew  wild  and  passions  rank,  God  in  infinite  mercy 
lowered  the  standard,  and  permitted  conjugal  divorce- 
ment.    The  high  ideal  of  wedlock  had  been  univer- 
sally departed  from,  wives  had  become  a  barterable 
merchandise.      Parents   selected    partners    for    their 
children  without   considerations   of    physical  beauty 
or  spiritual  compatibility  ;  love,  the  core  of  marriage, 
was  non-existent.     Under   circumstances   so   deplor- 
able,  how   could    it   otherwise   be   than   that   family 
jars  and  irritations  should  be  frequent  and  violent? 
To  prevent  these   domestic  contentions   culminating 
in    murder,    a   law   of    divorcement   was   established 
even  in  Israel— an  improvement  on  the  surrounding 
Paganism,   where    not    law,   but   individual    caprice, 
determined    the    matrimonial   relation.      Moses,   like 
every   wise    lawgiver,    legislated,   not    for    an    ideal, 
but   for   an   actual   state;    consequently  he   enacted 

13 


194  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

laws,  not  absolutely  but  relatively  the  best,  the 
best  under  the  prevailing  circumstances.  This  was 
a  period  in  the  history  of  the  world  of  sad  moral 
degeneracy.  With  Christianity,  however,  began  a 
third  period,  when  the  law  of  Paradise  is  again  made 
supreme.  Through  the  incarnation  of  Christ  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  new  life  is  being 
gradually  infused  into  the  race ;  and  with  the 
possession  by  humanity  of  additional  strength,  of 
fresh  inspiration,  the  standard  of  morality  is  exalted 
to  its  Paradisiacal  position  ;  and  subsequent  history 
testifies  to  the  gradual  approximation  of  men  to 
their  once  lost,  but  now  restored,  ideal. 

II.  Another  lesson  of  no  less  importance  is  taught 
mankind  by  this  Creation  story, — that  God  created 
man  male  and  female,  one  of  each  sex,  and  that 
therefore  monogamy  should  be  the  law  of  life. 

In  reviewing  this  phase  of  the  question  we  again 
perceive  three  periods  parallel  with  those  already 
discussed.  The  first  is,  of  course,  the  Paradisiacal. 
Had  mankind  continued  in  their  original  perfection, 
this  fundamental  law  of  life  would  have  remained 
inviolably  sacred.  But,  alas  !  the  animal  nature  over- 
came the  spiritual,  and  from  being  in  subjection 
to,  it  attained  to  dominion  over,  the  reason  and 
conscience.  As  a  dire  consequence,  the  bonds  of 
matrimony  were  unloosed,  and  polygamy  established 
itself  as  the  uniform  custom.  Plurality  of  wives 
had  entered  the  antediluvian  world,  as  evidenced 
by  the  history  of  Lamech,  who  dedicated  his  poem 
to  his  two  wives,  Adah  and  Zillah.  Even  in  the 
elect  nation  polygamy  could  not  be  safely  forbidden  ; 
the  Mosaic  law  aims,  therefore,  not  at  its  suppression. 


UNITY  AND  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN  I95 

but  its  regulation,  so  as  to  inflict  on  society  as 
slight  an  injury  as  possible.  But  polygamy,  or 
"concubinage,"  as  it  is  termed  in  Scripture,  does 
not  mean  adultery  or  fornication,  the  penalty  for 
which  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  death  ;  but  a 
legalised  marriage,  the  acknowledgment  by  statute, 
as  the  mouthpiece  of  public  opinion,  of  plurality 
of  "lawful  wedded  wives,"  with  the  concession  to 
the  monogamic  principle  that  the  first  had  the 
primacy  of  all  the  others. 

Sad  to  think  of  the  prevalence  of  concubinage 
even  in  Israel.  Nothing  can  better  exhibit  the  shock- 
ing degradation  into  which  mankind  had  sunk  than 
the  legalised  relations  which  obtained  between  the 
sexes.  So  blunted  had  become  the  moral  sense, 
that  even  in  the  family  of  the  godly  concubinage 
prevailed,  not  only  without  censure,  but  often  with 
the  approval  of  the  lawful  spouse.  Abraham  thought 
polygamy  no  sin,  nor  did  Jacob  condemn  it  in 
himself  or  children.  Gideon,  the  celebrated  judge 
of  Israel,  had  many  wives,  and  threescore  and  ten 
sons.  The  pious  Elkanah,  the  father  of  Samuel, 
had  two  wives.  David,  the  sweet  singer  of  Israel, 
had  several  wives,  and  received  the  wives  of  his 
predecessor  on  the  throne  into  his  harem  (2  Sam. 
xii.  8),  not  for  the  indulgence  of  sinful  passions,  but 
as  a  matter  of  custom  and  expediency.  Solomon 
had  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hundred  con- 
cubines, not,  however,  to  gratify  sensual  lust,  as  is 
popularly  imagined,  but  to  maintain  his  pre-eminence 
among  Eastern  monarchs,  the  royal  pomp  being 
measured  in  those  days  by  the  magnitude  and 
splendour  of  the  royal  harem. 


196  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

To   absolutely   forbid   polygamy,   to   try   to   stem 
this    wild,    irresistible    torrent   of   sensuality,    by    a 
prohibitory  statute  in    the    then    immature   state   of 
the   conscience,    private    and    public,    would    be    to 
court    inevitable    defeat.      To    endeavour    forthwith 
to   eradicate   the   evil   would   be  tantamount  to  the 
overthrow  of  the  entire   race.     But   what  could  not 
be    accomplished    by    direct    prohibition,   could    be 
partly    alleviated    by    prudent    regulation,    and    its 
evil   results   reduced    to    a    minimum.     This    is    all 
the    Mosaic    legislation    dared   attempt.     But   whilst 
nothing   more    patently   demonstrates    the    inherent 
evil  and  the  unrestrained  self-will  of  man  than  this 
riotous  trampling  under  foot  of  all  the  pure  sanctities 
of  marriage,    on    the    other   hand    nothing   exhibits 
the  power  of  revealed  religion  more  advantageously 
than,   whilst   permitting   it   as    a    necessary   evil,    it 
has  gradually   so   quickened    the   moral   sensibilities 
that    now,   in    all    Christian    communities,    plurality 
of  wives  is  viewed  with  righteous  abhorrence. 

With  Jesus  Christ  arrived  the  third  period.  His 
Church  again  raising  aloft  the  Creation  standard 
of  monogamy.  By  the  incarnation  of  the  Divine 
Son  in  our  nature,  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  in  our  hearts,  the  spiritual  forces  have  been 
rallied,  and  the  ethical  principles  of  wedlock  have 
been  vindicated,  and  marriage  is  once  more  a  holy 
ordinance,  if  not  a  Divine  sacrament. 

III.  From  this  story  of  the  creation  of  one  man 
and  one  woman,  St.  Paul  draws  the  inference  that 
"  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men, 
for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth"  (Acts 
xvii.  26) 


UNITY   AND  ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  197 

The    unity    of   the   human    race   is   practically    a 
demonstrated  truth  of  science.     Observing  the  wide 
differences  between  the  varieties  of  mankind,  between 
the  African  black  and  the  Caucasian  white,  Agassiz 
and  other  Christian  scientists  felt  constrained  to  the 
conclusion  that,  though  all  men  were  homogeneous, 
yet  they  had   separate  origins  ;  that   God   had   con- 
temporaneously created   divers   pairs,   in   a   plurality 
of    localities   widely    separated    from    one    another. 
But  the  more  the  question  is  investigated,  the  more 
general    is   the   trend    of    scientific    belief    that    the 
Mosaic  presentation  of  the  facts  is  correct.     Marvel- 
lous  the   change   of  opinion    which  has   come   over 
rationalistic    scientists   on    this   subject!      Formerly 
they  were  wont  to  stoutly  maintain  that  the  differ- 
ences between  the  various  races  were  so  great,  that 
it  was   impossible  they  could  have  descended   from 
a  single  pair.     To-day  they  assert  that  not  only  all 
men,  but  all  men  and  all  animals  alike,  are  indis- 
putably the  offspring  of  a  single  progenitor.     What 
they   pronounced    impossible    forty  years   ago,   they 
consider  an  established  verity  to-day.     And  yet  this 
is  the  science  in  favour  of  which  we   are  bidden  to 
turn  our  backs  on  the  Bible.     How  sober  the  Mosaic 
account   compared   with    these    wild    theories!   how 
carefully  it   avoids   the  extremes  which   exert    such 
powerful  fascination  over  scientific  minds  ! 

That  Moses  here  states  the  exact  truth  is  con- 
firmed by  considerations  based  on  the  physical 
nature  of  men.  That  the  difference  is  great  be- 
tween the  Negro  and  the  Greek,  the  Malaysian  and 
the  Teuton,  is  incontrovertibly  plain.  But  when 
we  remember  that  in    Adam  and   Eve  was   lodged 


igS  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

humanity  in  its  entireness,  and  therefore  all  possible 
germs  of  mental  and  physical  developments  ;  and 
that  man,  beyond  every  other  creature,  has  power 
to  adjust  himself  to  his  surroundings,  these  adjust- 
ments effecting  gradual  modifications  of  his  animal 
structure  ;  the  organic  variations,  however  marked, 
are  not  wholly  inexplicable,  not  beyond  the  pale 
of  probability.  But  the  fact  which  weighs  most, 
perhaps,  is  that  when  men  and  women,  at  the 
extreme  poles  of  divergence,  are  united  in  marriage, 
their  offspring  increase  in  all  the  prolific  qualities, 
without  any  signs  of  physical  or  mental  deteriora- 
tion, but  rather  exhibit  an  increase  of  strength. 
As  remarked  in  a  former  chapter,  hybrids  are 
struck  with  barrenness,  they  all  die  off  with  the  first 
generation  ;  but  cross-breeding  among  men  results 
in  the  improvement  of  the  species,  thus  showing 
that  fundamentally  the  five  races  of  men  are  one  ; 
and  that  Moses  is  right  in  teaching  that  all  men 
are  members  of  one  family,  and  that  consequently 
good-will  should  prevail  among  them,  based  on  the 
fact  of  universal  brotherhood. 

But  mind,  even  more  than  body,  is  the  most 
determinate  characteristic  of  men  ;  and  nothing  is 
more  evident  than  that  all  minds  are  fundamentally 
the  same.  Draw  a  map  of  the  human  mind,  and  it 
will  bear  scrutiny  in  the  five  zones.  The  laws  of 
logic  dominate  in  Africa  as  they  do  in  Europe.  The 
same  psychological  text-books,  which  we  place  in  the 
hands  of  our  young  men,  need  not  be  changed  in  a 
single  iota  in  the  universities  of  India.  Algebra  and 
Euclid  are  as  intelligible  in  China  as  they  are  in 
England.      This   universal    prevalence   of    the   same 


UNITY   AND   ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN  199 

mental  laws  among  the  Malaysians  and  the 
Caucasians,  among  the  Hottentots  and  the  Eskimo, 
powerfully  indicates  sameness  of  origin,  in  accordance 
with  the  Mosaic  teaching. 

When  we  penetrate  into  the  moral  region,  the 
evidence  continues  to  gather  in  volume  and  strength. 
The  will,  the  heart,  the  conscience  are  everywhere 
the  same ;  so  that  the  saying  is  true  that  the  white 
man  is  God's  image  in  ivory,  and  the  black  man  His 
image  in  ebony.  The  will  is  free  in  every  climate ; 
love  finds  its  home  in  every  bosom  ;  and  conscience, 
whenever  and  wherever  awakened,  answers  to  the 
same  voice,  and  acknowledges  the  same  obligations. 
Man  is  one  in  his  Fall,  one  also  in  his  Redemption. 
Sin  is  the  same  the  world  over,  and  in  every 
country  Grace  triumphs.  The  legend  tells  us  that, 
on  the  expulsion  of  our  first  parents  from  Eden, 
the  cherubim  smashed  the  Gates  of  Paradise ;  and 
that  so  violent  were  the  blows,  the  fragments  flew 
all  over  the  w^orld.  This  is  spiritually  true.  Frag- 
ments of  Paradisiacal  truth  have  doubtless  been 
scattered  wherever  mankind  have  travelled  ;  portions 
are  clearly  discernible  in  the  religions  of  China,  of 
India,  of  Persia,  and  of  Arabia.  Their  original  glow 
and  sparkle  is  still  seen  amid  the  incrustations  of 
superstition  and  vice ;  but  by-and-by  all  these  frag- 
ments will  be  gathered  together,  and  welded  into 
one  homogeneous  whole,  and  there  shall  be  "  one 
flock  and  one  Shepherd."  The  unity  of  the  human 
race  is  reflected  in  the  unity  of  truth,  and  consum- 
mated in  the  unity  of  the  way  of  Salvation. 

IV.  Closely  connected  with  the  unity  of  mankind 
is  the  question  of  their  antiquity.     Biblical  chrono- 


200  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

logy  continues  in  a  state  of  uncertainty,  the  principle 
on  which  the  ages  of  men  are  calculated  having  not 
yet  been  fully  elucidated.  Consequently  a  margin 
of  one  or  two  thousand  years  is  not  unreasonable. 
But  so  far  as  inquiries  into  this  subject  have  been 
pushed,  there  is  a  consensus  of  opinion  that  Moses 
teaches  the  existence  of  man  for  about  six  to  eight 
thousand  years,  and  no  longer.  Scientific  sceptics 
have  for  nearly  a  century  been  heaping  obloquy  on 
the  Mosaic  chronology,  ridiculing  the  time-penury 
of  Moses  as  compared  with  the  scores,  yea,  the 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  years  accorded  to  man  by 
ethnic  history  and  geological  investigations.  No- 
thing carries  home  more  convincingly  to  the  mind 
the  thorough  reliableness  of  the  Mosaic  records  than 
to  see  Science,  in  its  infant  days  demanding  for  man 
a  history  stretching  backward  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  years,  in  its  more  mature  days  obliged  to  confess 
that,  after  all  its  wild  and  extravagant  hypotheses, 
Moses'  chronology  may  yet  prove  to  be  true. 
Prodigal  sciences,  like  prodigal  sons,  at  last  return 
home. 

Earlier  in  the  century  the  opponents  of  Biblical 
revelation  strove  hard  to  discredit  the  Mosaic 
chronology  by  appealing  to  the  histories  of  other 
nations.  Chinese  astronomy  was  alleged  to  go  back 
at  least  fifteen  thousand  years.  Professor  Legge, 
however,  the  greatest  living  authority  on  Chinese 
literature,  declares,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
China  has  no  authentic  history  before  1154  B.C. — 
just  about  the  time  of  the  exodus  from  Egypt, 
though  their  "Book  of  History"  may  contain  true 
traditions  extending  back  a  thousand  years  earlier. 


UNITY   AND  ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN  201 

Another  attempt  was  made  to  marshal  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  as  witnesses  against  the  Hebrew 
chronology.  Berosus,  the  Babylonian  priest,  a  con- 
temporary of  Malachi,  was  sought  after  to  demolish 
Moses,  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.  Is  it  not  evidence  of 
grave  moral  obliquity  that  learned  men  should  show 
readiness  to  believe  Berosus  in  preference  to  Moses  ? 
What  has  Moses  done  to  excite  against  him  the 
bitter  antagonism  of  these  men  who  cry,  Not  Moses, 
but  Berosus  ?  But  Professor  Rawlinson  says  that  the 
allegation  that  sidereal  observations  had  been  made 
at  Babylon  for  above  four  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
years,  is  sufficiently  met  by  the  fact  that,  when 
Aristotle  commissioned  his  disciple,  Callisthenes,  to 
obtain  for  him  the  astronomical  lore  of  Babylon,  on 
Alexander's  occupation  of  the  city,  the  observations 
were  found  to  extend,  not  to  four  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  years,  but  to  nineteen  hundred  and  three. 
Professor  Sayce,  after  an  exhaustive  examination, 
pronounces  the  opinion  that  no  tablets  or  monu- 
ments can  claim  a  greater  antiquity  than  about  four 
thousand  four  hundred  years.  Moses  still  stands 
honoured  and  revered,  whereas  the  Berosus'  long- 
lived  dynasties  are  demonstrated  to  be  fanciful 
inventions. 

Later,  driven  away  from  China,  and  from  Assyria 
and  Babylonia,  rationalistic  writers  have  sought  refuge 
in  Egypt.  Manetho,  the  Egyptian  priest,  living  a 
century  later  than  Malachi,  was  led  forth  to  testify 
against  Moses.  According  to  him,  the  Egyptian 
dynasties  had  continued  unbroken  for  thirty  thousand 
years.  His  testimony  was  to  be  preferred  to  that 
of  Moses.      Then  the  assertions  of  Manetho  found 


202  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

support  in  the  sculptured  zodiacs  in  certain  Egyptian 
temples,  declared  by  experts  to  be  seventeen  thou- 
sand years  old !  The  discomfiture  of  Moses  was 
pronounced  complete.  Champollion,  however,  the 
first  to  decipher  the  hieroglyphics,  translated  the 
zodiacs,  and,  behold  !  the  famous  zodiac  of  Denderah, 
which  was  alleged  to  have  undermined  the  trust- 
worthiness of  Genesis,  was  only  contemporaneous 
with  the  reign  of  Augustus  Caesar,  while  that  of 
Emeh  belonged  to  the  age  of  Antoninus  ! 

One  is  amazed  at  the  readiness  with  which  the 
romances  of  heathen  writers  are  swallowed  and  de- 
fended by  able  men,  for  no  other  conceivable  reason 
or  motive  than  the  disparagement  of  Moses.  The 
more,  however,  ancient  contemporary  histories  are 
criticised,  the  more  secure  sits  Moses  in  his  seat. 
So  many  violent  attempts  have  been  made  to  dis- 
lodge him  without  the  slightest  success,  that  the 
faith  has  been  engendered  in  some  of  us  that  present 
and  future  attempts  in  the  same  direction  are  doomed 
to  the  same  inane  failure. 

Historic  science  failing  them,  writers  of  anti-supra- 
naturalistic  tendencies  sought  confirmation  to  the 
extreme  antiquity  of  mankind  in  natural  science. 
Here  again  mental  intoxication  set  in.  Man  was 
declared  to  live  in  pre-glacial  times.  If  human 
remains  were  found  in  the  same  deposit  as  that 
of  the  mammoth,  then  man  must  have  existed  in 
the  mammoth  age.  It  did  not  occur  to  them  to 
argue  the  other  way,  that  the  mammoth  must  have 
lived  down  to  the  human  age.  That,  however,  is 
Professor  Owen's  verdict :  "  The  present  evidence 
does   not  necessitate  the  carrying  back  the    date    of 


UNITY  AND   ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN  203 

man  in  past  time,  so  much  as  bringing  the  extinc 
post-glacial  animals  towards  our  own  time."  Sir 
J.  W.  Dawson  sums  up  his  examination  of  these 
theories  in  these  words :  "  What  evidence  the  future 
may  bring  forth  I  do  not  know,  but  that  available 
at  present  points  to  the  appearance  of  man,  with 
all  his  powers  and  properties,  in  the  post-glacial 
age  of  Geology,  and  not  more  than  from  six  thousand 
to  eight  thousand  years  ago."  ^  And  as  late  as  1 894, 
at  a  meeting  of  the  British  Association  of  Science, 
Professor  Boyd-Dawkins  and  Sir  John  Evans, 
the  two  men  most  competent  to  pronounce  an 
authoritative  opinion,  declared  that  no  proofs  are 
forthcoming  in  support  of  the  theory  of  glacial  or 
pre-glacial  man.  Moses  and  Science  once  more 
stand  shoulder  to  shoulder !  Berosus  and  Manetho 
have  fallen  discredited  ;  Moses  stands,  though  often 
impeached,  with  his  character  unsoiled  and  his 
authority  unshaken.  How  to  account  for  this  miracle 
of  history  ? 

Others,  again,  base  their  argument  against  the 
Mosaic  chronology  on  the  long  period  of  time 
necessarily  required  for  the  growth  of  languages, 
and  the  development  of  the  arts  which  embellish 
civilised  life.  Assuming  that  man  once  sucked  an 
ape  and  began  life  a  speechless  savage,  the  demand 
for  longer  reaches  of  time  for  him  to  unfold  his 
faculties  is  by  no  means  extravagant.  But  that 
is  simply  begging  the  question,  taking  for  granted 
the  very  point  in  dispute.  But  on  the  Mosaic 
hypothesis  that  man  began  life,  not  as  a  savage, 
but  in  a  state  of  civilisation,  and  richly  endowed 
1  Fossil  Man ^  p.  246. 


204  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

with  the  gift  of  speech,  the  received  chronology 
seems  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of  the  case. 
If  from  the  Latin  of  imperial  Rome,  under  the 
eye  of  Christian  civilisation  and  enlightenment,  have 
sprung  Italian,  French,  Spanish,  and  Portuguese, 
mutually  unintelligible,  notwithstanding  the  conser- 
vative restraints  imposed  on  language  by  literature, 
written  and  printed,  it  is  not  beyond  the  bounds 
of  credibility  that  the  three  thousand  languages  and 
dialects  prevailing  to-day  should  have  all  emerged 
from  the  one  primordial  tongue  in  the  course  of  the 
millenniums.  The  more  thoroughly  these  questions 
are  sifted,  the  more  firmly  grows  the  conviction  that 
the  Mosaic  teaching  concerning  the  comparatively 
recent  origin  of  man  is  right.  At  the  commencement 
of  these  inquiries  Science  gets  intoxicated,  makes 
extravagant  statements  ;  but,  in  each  case,  as  re- 
searches are  further  carried,  she  is  gradually  sobered, 
and  has  reluctantly  to  recant.  Moses  still  holds  his 
ground,  alone  calm  and  immovable  amid  the  strife 
of  words  and  the  clash  of  theories. 


M 


CHAPTER    VIII 

man's  innocence  and  probation 

ANY  moderns  strongly  incline  to  the  view  that 
the  story  of  the  Fall  is  a  myth.  All  other 
nations  have  their  myths;  the  records  of  their 
infancy  are  not  histories,  but  the  spontaneous, 
unconscious  growths  of  imagination  running  riot, 
before  the  critical  faculty  is  excited.  If  that  be 
true  of  all  other  nations,  why  make  an  exception 
of  the  Hebrews  ?  They  also  were  men  subject  to 
the  same  mental  laws  as  other  people. 

It   is   observable,  however,  that  the  advocates  of 
the   mythical  theory  do   not  tell  us  what   they  pre- 
cisely mean  by  a  myth,  and  a  great  deal  of  confusion 
arises  from  lack  of  definition.     Much  of  what  passes 
for   broad  thought   is  loose  thought ;    laxity  is  mis- 
taken  for   breadth.     These   writers   speak   glibly   of 
philosophical    and    historical    myths:    what    is    the 
difference?     So  far  as  I  can  judge,  in  a  philosophica 
myth   the   facts   grow  out  of  the  ideas.     Individual 
thinkers,  or  the  collective  thinkers,  of  early  ages  form 
certain   conceptions   of  the   nature   and  sequence  of 
things  ;  to  express  these  abstract  thoughts  they  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  embody  them  in  fictitious 
narratives  ;  these   manufactured  narratives   are  then 

205 


206  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

transmitted  to  subsequent  ages  as  veritable,  real 
history.  The  ideas  create  the  facts.  In  a  historical 
myth,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ideas  are  the  investiture 
of  the  facts  either  by  growth  from  within  or  trans- 
ference from  without.  There  is  a  substratum  of 
facts,  but  the  facts  are  swollen,  exaggerated,  multiplied 
by  the  excited  imagination  always  on  the  look 
out  for  the  marvellous,  till  the  history  becomes 
wholly  untrustworthy.  Either  way  the  antediluvian 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  declared  undeserving  of  con- 
fidence. This  theory  leaves  us  in  total  ignorance 
of  all  that  transpired  before  the  Deluge — a  theory 
which  I  for  one  cannot  accept.  But  why  should 
the  Hebrew  account  be  regarded  differently  from 
the  myths  of  other  nations  ?  A  sufficient  reason, 
I  believe,  is  found  in  the  consideration  that,  if  God 
was  pleased  to  elect  the  Hebrews  to  be  the  deposi- 
taries of  the  truth  concerning  God  and  man,  as 
many  of  the  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory  admit, 
it  is  not  probable  that  facts  of  the  greatest  moment 
in  the  life  of  the  race,  such  as  our  creation,  temptation, 
and  fall,  would  be  wholly  overlooked.  And  if  given 
at  all,  they  might  as  well  be  given  in  a  true  as 
in  a  fictitious  garb. 

Is  the  Genesis  account,  then,  to  be  considered 
poetry  ?  Here  again  the  question  arises,  What 
is  poetry?  Whatever  it  is,  it  cannot  be  the  con- 
tradiction of  history,  but  rather  its  interpretation ; 
not  the  denial  of  truth,  but  its  highest,  completest 
expression.  In  this  sense  I  have  no  objection  to 
view  these  chapters  as  poetry,  for  poetry  is  the  truest 
history,  history  written  from  the  inside  rather  than 
from  the   outside,  and    therefore   incomparably  truer 


man's  innocence  and  probation        207 

than   what  often    passes   as   history  in   the   schools. 
When  a  boy  I  read  the  history  of  Richard  III.  in  the 
school-books  of  the  period  ;  I  knew  the  date  of  his 
birth  and  of  his  death,  the  dates  of  all  his  battles, 
and  could  write  an  essay  on  his  life.     A  little  later 
I  read  Shakespeare's    play  of   Richard,  and    for  the 
first  time    I    understood   the    English   king.     Shake- 
speare unravelled  the  history  of  the  inner  man,  told 
how  the  king  thought  and  felt,  showed  the  workings 
of  his   heart    and    brain.      I    have    known    Richard 
ever    since,    Shakespeare's    tragedy    being    a    truer 
picture   of  Richard   than    Green's   history.     But  the 
tragedy  is  not  a  contradiction  of  the  history,  rather 
its     explanation     and     transfiguration.       The     first 
chapters   of  Genesis   are   poetry,   undiluted  poetry  ; 
but   on    that    account    they   need   not   cease   to    be 
history.      Cannot    poetry    be    history,    and    history 
poetry  ?     Chateaubriand  regards  the  Mosaic  account 
as  poetry  ;  Professor  Stanley  Leathes,  on   the  other 
hand,  takes  it  "  for  what  it  undoubtedly  is,  plain  and 
simple  prose."  ^     I  perceive  no  contradiction  or  dis- 
agreement between  the  two   views— poetry  may   be 
history,  and  history  poetry.     Do  you  know  anything 
more    poetical,   more   tragical,   than    the   history   of 
Great  Britain?     When  the   right   poet  will   arise  to 
present   our   campaigns   of  conquest   and    our   wars 
in    defence   and   for    the    extension   of   liberty,   the 
promiscuous    struggles    of    voters    at    the    election 
booths,   and   the  noisy  battles   of  eloquence  on    the 
floors   of  the   two    Houses   of  Parliament,   he    need 
not  invent  or  fabricate— the  materials  will  be  ready- 
made  to  his  hand.     All  he  will  have   to  do  will  be 
1  Structure  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  123. 


208  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

to  marshal  his  facts,  and  array  them  in  language 
fitting  and  picturesque,  like  the  uniform  of  the  British 
soldier. 

All  nations  look  back  to  a  golden  age  of  the 
world,  a  Paradisiacal  period  in  the  history  of  the 
race.  But  why  was  that  age  golden  ?  Because 
the  actual  and  ideal  then  kissed ;  history  was 
poetry,  and  poetry  history.  Among  the  nations 
of  antiquity  the  Hebrews  alone  look  forward  to 
another  golden  age  when  the  lion  and  the  lamb 
shall  lie  down  together,  and  the  leopard  like  an  ox 
will  eat  grass.  Christian  nations  have  caught  this 
optimistic  tone  from  the  Hebrews,  and  are  now 
expectant  of  a  period  when  poetry  and  history, 
long  divorced,  will  again  embrace  ;  when  the  actual 
and  ideal,  now  gradually  approaching,  will  finally 
meet  and  coalesce. 

I.  Looking,  therefore,  upon  these  chapters  as 
both  poetically  and  historically  true,  let  us  con- 
template man  in  the  state  of  his  innocence ^  as  he 
came  fresh  from  the  hands  of  his  Maker,  in  the 
initial  stage  of  his  development. 

His  physical  nature  is  perfect,  without  weakness 
or  flaw.  In  our  bodies  there  lurk  the  seeds  of 
disorder.  These  seeds  have  not  yet  developed, 
and  by  proper  care  may  not  work  in  us  irreparable 
mischief  Nevertheless  they  are  here,  a  source  of 
peril  and  anxiety  to  us  as  long  as  we  live.  Adam, 
however,  was  thoroughly  free  from  all  germs  of 
sickness.  By  this  is  not  intended  that  his  body 
was  created  intrinsically  immortal.  That  is  the 
view,  perhaps,  popularly  taken  ;  but  students  of 
our    nature  say  that  the  organs  of  the  body  would, 


man's  innocence  and  probation        209 

in  the  nature  of  things,  wear  themselves  out,  tliat 
the  human  machine  would  of  necessity  stop  revolving. 
In  consonance  with  science,  the  Bible,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  assumes  that  physical  immortality  was 
not  a  native  endowment,  but  was  to  be  superadded 
as  the  reward  of  holiness.  The  immortality  of 
man,  in  the  totahty  of  his  being,  according  to  the 
Bible,  has  its  foundation  in  ethics,  not  physics. 
The  soul  was  created  immortal,  but  the  body  mortal  : 
that  is  the  teaching  of  Moses  as  well  as  Plato.  But 
before  the  eyes  of  man  God  held  out  the  hope  of 
the  immortality  of  the  body  ;  which,  however,  was 
to  be  the  gift  of  God  as  a  reward  of  true-hearted 
loyalty.  As  death  was  to  be  the  wages  of  sin,  so 
exemption  from  death  was  to  be  the  reward  of 
obedience.  Had  Adam  not  yielded  to  temptation 
he  would  have  never  died,  not  because  his  corporeal 
nature  was  endowed  with  physical  immortality,  but 
because  God  had  ordained  means  whereby,  as  a 
sign  of  His  favour  for  moral  steadfastness,  his  life 
might  be  indefinitely  prolonged.  These  means  were 
connected  with,  probably  embodied  in,  the  Tree  of 
Life  in  the  midst  of  the  Garden. 

How  should  this  Tree  of  Life  be  viewed  ?  Did 
it  occupy  this  position,  and  possess  this  virtue, 
simply  as  the  result  of  Divine  appointment?  In 
other  words,  had  God  not  so  ordained,  would  it 
differ  in  nothing  from  ordinary  trees  ?  Did  God 
take  any  apple  tree,  and  by  arbitrary  enactment 
make  it  a  Tree  of  Life,  without  any  miraculous 
metamorphosis  of  the  tree  ?  Of  course,  no  limits  can 
be  laid  to  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  except  those 
prescribed  by  the  Divine  Wisdom.     Possibly  those 

14 


210  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

thcoloci^ians  are  right  who  maintain  that  the  virtue 
lay  wholly,  not  in  the  tree  itself,  but  in  the  Divine 
ordainment.  But  personally  I  favour  the  other 
view.  The  preferences  of  God  have  always  a  basis 
in  fact — God  does  all  things,  not  according  to  the 
caprice,  but  the  counsel,  of  His  will.  This  tree  was 
probably  generically  different  from  all  other  trees. 
What  the  difference  was  surpasses  our  power  to 
discover  ;  but  emphatically  it  was  a  Tree  of  Life — 
by  participation  in  the  juice  of  its  fruit  or  the  sap 
of  its  bark  the  physical  life  would  be  invigorated 
and  prolonged.  More  than  any  other  passage  the 
Divine  colloquy  in  Gen.  iii.  22,  23  sheds  light  upon 
it  :  "  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  Us,  to 
know  good  and  evil :  and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his 
hand,  and  take  also  of  the  Tree  of  Life,  and  eat, 
and  live  for  ever  !  "  An  intimation  is  here  contained 
that  the  fruit  of  this  tree  had  the  power  to  impart 
bodily  immortality,  apart  from  all  considerations  of 
holiness  of  character  ;  but  through  sin  man  forfeited 
his  right  to  partake  thereof.  Did  God  gather  to- 
gether into  this  tree  in  the  centre  of  the  Garden  the 
quintessence  of  all  cosmical  life,  thereby  constitu- 
ting its  juice  the  veritable  elixir  of  immortality,  and 
once  more  illustrating  that  history  and  poetry 
embrace?  In  the  prosecution  of  industrial  and 
mechanical  avocations,  inevitable  was  it  that  acci- 
dents should  occur,  that  the  chisel  should  cut  the 
flesh,  and  the  stone  crush  the  foot — the  belief  of 
Albcrtus  Magnus,  notwithstanding,  that  the  first 
man  would  have  felt  no  pain,  though  he  had  been 
stoned  with  heavy  stones  ;  but  in  the  leaves  of  the 
Tree  of  Life  was  medicine  for  all  his  sicknesses.    Now 


MAN'S   INNOCENCE   AND   PROBATION  211 

healing  virtues  are  distributed    in  a  hundred   plants 
and  more,  specific  plants  being  remedies  for  specific 
diseases  ;    but   in   the    Tree  of  Life   were   probably  1 
concentrated    the  medicinal  virtues  of  all  the   vege- 
table   creation,    and    special    virtues    of    its   own    in 
addition,  and  thus  it  was  a  universal  panacea  against     ' 
all  evil.     Was  it  not  in  this  the  Creation  symbol  of 
the  Gospel  Tree  of  Life,  "  which  bears  twelve  manner 
of  fruit,  each  month  giving  its  fruit,  and  the  leaves 
of  the    tree    are    for    the   healing  of  the    nations"? 
"  And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  in  their 
synagogues,  and  healing  all  manner  of  sickness,  and 
all    manner   of  disease   among   the    people."      Thus 
man's  corporeal  immortality  was  not  a  native  endow- 
ment, but  was  to  be  superadded  in   consequence  of 
participation  in   the   Tree   of   Life,  which  participa- 
tion was   to  be  permitted  as  the  reward  of  dutiful  ^ 
obedience. 

Man's  intellect  was  a  worthy  inhabitant  of  ^ 
his  physical  tenement,  perfect  in  all  its  facultiies 
harmonious  in  all  its  emotions.  By  this,  however, 
is  not  to  be  understood  that  his  mind  was  replete  ^ 
in  respect  of  contents,  for  obviously  there  was  a 
moment  in  his  history  when  no  truth  consciously 
dwelt  within  him.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was 
no  error,  no  depravity,  no  impurity  in  the  cask  to 
taint  ever  afterwards  with  its  bitter  taste  all  the 
sweet  waters.  His  was  a  perfectly  transparent 
mind  in  a  perfectly  sound  body. 

Neither  was  he  left  to  the  uncertain  gropings  of 
his  own  unaided  faculties— God  became  his  tutor. 
What  more  consistent  than  that  the  God,  who 
showed  such  solicitude  in  his  creation,  should  con- 


212  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

tinuc  His  special  guardianship,  and  Himself  under- 
take his  education  ?  Be  the  story  true  or  not,  it  is 
certainly  harmonious,  and  harmony  is  one  of  the 
indubitable  notes  of  truth. 

What  then  was  the  educational  process  ?  Did 
God  fill  the  first  man  with  knowledge  ready-made  ? 
Certainly  not ;  but  by  a  combination  of  circum- 
stances He  set  revolving  his  mental  faculties — He 
made  him  think.  "  And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord 
God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl 
of  the  air  ;  and  brought  them  unto  Adam  to  see 
what  he  would  call  them  :  and  whatsoever  Adam 
called  every  living  creature,  that  was  the  name 
thereof."  In  education,  as  is  well  known,  there  are 
two  methods  of  teaching.  The  first  crams  the  mind 
with  information,  converting  the  mind  into  a  ware- 
house where  facts  of  every  kind  are  safely  stored. 
This  is  an  excellent  method  to  pass  examinations 
as  now  conducted,  which  gauge  your  stores  of 
knowledge  rather  than  measure  your  powers  of 
thought.  Hence  many  a  young  man,  whose  univer- 
sity career  was  most  brilliant,  falls  behind  in  the 
race  of  life,  where  ability,  not  memory — originality, 
not  receptivity — counts.  There  is  another  method, 
deemed  by  all  competent  judges  to  be  superior. 
According  to  this  the  teacher  endeavours  to  make 
the  child  think.  He  does  not  supply  him  with 
manufactured  knowledge,  but  strives  to  induce  him 
to  discover  truth  for  himself  This  was  also  the 
Divine  method  in  the  instruction  of  the  first  man — 
God  did  not  so  much  put  in  as  draw  out.  He  did 
not  take  Adam,  saying,  This  is  the  name  of  this 
creature,  and  that  is  the  name  of  the  second  ;  but 


man's  innocence  and  trobation        213 

He  brought  the  animals  to  Adam  "  to  sec  what  he 
would  call  them"— He  made  Adam  think,  and 
thought  is  the  mother  of  speech.  Adam  gazed  on 
the  animals,  thought  into  their  nature,  and  as  he 
thought  so  he  named  them.  Adam  thought  deep 
down  into  the  roots  of  things  and  of  language. 

Pleasant  is  it  further  to  reflect  that  man's  moral 
nature  rhymed  beautifully  with  his  intellectual  and 
physical  nature.  The  greatest  harmony  prevailed  in 
this  human  trinity.  But  to  represent  man  as  stand- 
ing perpendicularly  between  God  and  Satan,  perfectly 
neutral  between  good  and  evil,  is  hardly  correct, 
indeed  not  correct  at  all.  In  his  creation  the  in- 
clination of  his  nature  was  in  the  direction  of  virtue  ;  "> 
his  instincts  all  moved  Godward.  His  heart  gravitated 
towards  God.  A  natural  affinity  obtained  between 
the  human  and  the  Divine,  between  the  spirit  of  man 
and  the  soul  of  goodness.  As  since  the  Fall  human 
nature  leans  to  the  side  of  evil,  so  before  the  Fall 
it  inclined  to  the  side  of  virtue.  The  Fall  reversed 
the  natural  inclination  of  our  nature.  This  natural 
bias  towards  God  and  goodness  the  older  theologians 
styled  original  righteousness  ;  and  the  natural  prone- 
ness  of  human  nature  to  evil  they  named  original 
sin.  But  in  neither  case  is  the  original  tantamount 
to  the  acquired. 

Be  it  then  clearly  apprehended  that  the  human 
heart  at  its  creation  was  not  an  empty  vessel,  to  be 
gradually  filled  with  love  to  God  or  love  to  sin.  It 
was  already  full.  Love  is  the  first  experience  of 
man.  The  babe  learns  to  love  before  he  learns 
anything  else  ;  his  little  heart  bubbles  up  with  love 
to  his  mother   before   a  single  idea  finds  conscious 


214  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

lodgment  in  his  intellect.  True,  it  is  but  the  love 
of  instinct  ;  yet  by  degrees  love  of  instinct  will 
develop  into  love  of  will.  Similarly  with  Adam. 
He  possessed  love  to  his  Creator — love  of  instinct  it 
may  be,  but  love  nevertheless  ;  and  here  emerges 
the  question,  How  to  develop  love  of  instinct  into 
love  of  will?  How  to  convert  the  love,  which  has 
its  origin  in  human  nature,  into  love  having  its  root 
in  human  liberty? 

"  God  created  man  in  His  image,  after  His  like- 
ness." Most  of  the  Greek  fathers,  misled  probably 
by  the  Septuagint  translation,  which,  departing  from 
the  Hebrew,  puts  the  copulative  conjunction  between 
"  image "  and  "  likeness,"  argued  that  a  difference 
obtains  between  the  two  terms.  Subtle  and  ingenious 
were  the  distinctions  they  drew.  Neither  are  many 
modern  theologians  content  with  the  view  that  the 
two  words  are  synonyms,  added  for  the  sake  of 
weight  and  emphasis.  Some  say  that  the  difference 
is  that  the  "  image  "  denotes  the  spiritual  substance 
of  the  soul,  whereas  the  "  likeness "  refers  to  the 
moral  character,  which  is  detachable  from  the  sub- 
stance. In  accordance  with  this  view,  man  through 
sin  lost  the  "  likeness,"  the  moral  qualities  analogous 
to  the  Divine  moral  attributes  becoming  obliterated. 
Instead  of  affinity  there  came  repulsion.  The 
"  image,"  nevertheless,  continued,  the  substance  of 
the  spirit  remained  intact ;  hence  men  after  the  Fall 
are  said  to  be  in  the  Divine  image,  though  not  in 
the  Divine  likeness.  The  spiritual  substance  persists, 
the  moral  character  has  disappeared.  Others  assume 
that  the  "  image  "  indicates  man  in  his  original  created 
state,  and  "  likeness  "  man  as  he  was  destined  to  be 


man's  Innocence  and  probation       215 

in  the  future  as  the  result  of  a  conthiucd  course  of 
development,  man  after  having  reached  his  full  moral 
stature.      "  God  created  man  in  His  image  "  :  that  is 
man  at  the  beginning  of  his  career,  man  in  a  state  of 
innocence,  man  in  the  actual,  before  his  nature  began 
to    unfold  its   hidden    potentialities.     "  In    His  like- 
ness "  :  that  is  man  as  he  was  intended  to  be,  man 
in  a  condition  of  holiness,  man  after  having  reached 
the  Divine  ideal,  at  the  topmost  goal  of  his  develop- 
ment.    One   is    the   acorn,   the   other  the  full-grown 
oak.     And  here  we  encounter  the  same  problem  as 
before,  How  to  make  the  acorn  grow  into  the  oak  ? 
How  to  make  the  actual    man  arrive  at  his   ideal? 
How  to  elevate  a  state  of  innocence  into  a  state  of 
holiness?     In   other   words.   How   to   transmute   the 
goodness,  which  has  its  origin  in  human  nature,  into 
goodness  having  its   root  in   human   liberty?     How 
to  develop   love  of  instinct  into  love  of  will  ?     The 
problem  of  the  will  here  emerges,  the  crux  of  the 
theology  as  well  as  of  the  philosophy  of  the  Fall. 
II.  This  has  led  us  to  man  in  a  state  oi probation. 
It  should    never  be  forgotten  that  the  will  is  the 
only  fount    of  ethics,   that   nothing    is   moral  which 
does    not    proceed   from    the    will.     Man,    therefore, 
being  essentially  a  moral  creature,  subject  to  moral 
law,  it  is  of  prime  importance  that  the  will  be  rightly 
developed.     But  how  to  develop  the  will  ?     We  have 
already  seen  how  the  body  and  mind  were  developed 
— namely,  by  exercise.     Precisely  in  the  same  manner 
is   the   will   to    be   drawn    out    and    strengthened — 
by   calling   upon    it   to   choose    between    good    and 
evil,   good    and   evil    in    their  initial  stages,  in   their 
lowest,  easiest  forms.     This  precisely  is  the  purport 


2l6  t^RlMEVAL   REVELATION 

of  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil ;  and 
because  it  takes  its  place  so  naturally  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  story  of  human  evolution — and  not 
only  so  naturally,  but  so  necessarily — I  view  the 
account,  not  as  a  fanciful,  mythical  embellishment, 
but  as  literal  history  ;  and  the  more  literal,  the 
more  poetical  and  philosophical.  Its  philosophy 
demonstrates  its  historicity.  What  manual  labour 
was  to  Adam  in  Paradise — means  to  strengthen 
his  body  ;  what  the  secrets  of  animal  nature  were 
to  his  mind — means  to  invigorate  his  intellectual 
faculties :  that,  and  nothing  else,  was  the  Tree  of 
Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil  to  his  will — a  simple 
but  indispensable  means  to  awaken  it  into  healthful 
exercise,  to  start  it  rightly  on  a  course  of  moral 
development.  It  was  a  tree  of  moral,  not  intellectual, 
knowledge,  placed  necessarily  at  the  threshold  of 
ethical  evolution  to  train  and  guide  the  human 
will  aright.  In  Hebrew  thought  the  essence  of 
knowledge  is  not  intellectuality,  but  morality  ;  not 
metaphysics,  but  ethics. 

The  popular  idea  is  that  God  in  His  pure 
sovereignty,  without  any  necessity,  placed  this 
stumbling-block  on  the  way  of  our  progress  in 
goodness  ;  and  that,  if  He  had  not  made  the  appoint- 
ment, men  would  not  have  sinned.  The  probation 
is  looked  upon  as  a  superfluous  appendage  to 
man's  history,  arbitrarily  added  by  the  Creator. 
The  prohibition  to  eat  of  the  Tree  of  Knowledge 
of  Good  and  Evil  is  viewed  as  a  positive  command- 
ment, i.e.  an  enactment  capriciously  enjoined  by 
God  in  the  exercise  of  His  sovereignty,  without 
any   necessity   for    it,  and   which  we   slyly  think    it 


man\s  innocence  and  probation        217 

were   somewhat   better  for    Him,  and    a   great   deal 
better   for    us,    if    it    had  never  been    given    at   all. 
The   popular   idea,  however,    is   essentially   mislead- 
ing.    That    it   was   positive   in  the  sense  that    God 
could  give  a  different  test  is  true  ;  but  if  man  were 
to   grow    in    morality,   it    could    be    done   only   by 
bringing   him   face   to   face  with   an  edict  enjoining 
this,  forbidding   that.     This  rock   of  offence  was  on 
our  way  already  ;  and  all  God  did  was  to  indicate 
its   place   by   erecting    upon   it   this    commandment 
like    a   lighthouse,    to    warn     man  not  to    run   his 
little  vessel  upon  its  jagged  teeth.     Parental  mercy, 
not   pedagogic    severity,   it   was   which   put   up   the 
lighthouse.     The  cross-roads,   where  good   and   evil 
begin  to  separate,  were  not  planned  by  the  Divine 
Sovereignty  ;  they  existed  in  the  eternal  nature   of 
things.       All    that    God    did   was    to    put   up    the 
Tree   of   Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil  as  a  finger- 
post   on     the     crossing,    and     on    it     inscribed    in 
large    legible   letters,   The   way  of  obedience  is   the 
way   of  life ;   the  way   of  disobedience   is   the   way 
of  death.     Was  it  not  love  in  the  Almighty  to  set 
up   the   fingerpost  ?      Every  rational   creature   must 
travel  past  these    cross-roads,  where   good    and    evil 
begin  to  separate,  and  make  his  choice  accordingly. 
The  angels  journeyed  this  way,  a  mighty  host.     One 
section  took  to  the  right,  and  are  to-day  established 
for  ever  in  purity  and  peace  ;  the  other  section  took 
to  the  left,  and  are  now  bound  in  chains  of  darkness, 
reserved  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.     Im- 
perative  was    it    that   men    should   also   pass   along 
the  same    road  ;   but   so  great  was  God's  solicitude 
for   our   welfare,   and   His   anxiety   that   we   should 


2l8  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

develop  safely  past  the  dangerous  crisis  of  our 
history,  that  He  erected  a  fingerpost  on  the  crossing 
to  caution  us  against  taking  to  the  path  of  self-will  : 
"  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die."  The  God  of  the  Bible  is  not  given  to  cunning, 
ensnaring  man  by  craftiness  into  evil  ;  but  open- 
hearted,  open-minded,  and  in  the  condescending 
power  of  love  setting  up  the  Tree  of  Knowledge, 
not  to  hinder,  but  to  help,  our  development  in 
goodness  and  felicity.  The  same  tender  love,  which 
afterwards  erected  the  Tree  of  the  Cross  on  Calvary, 
to  deliver  man  from  under  the  dominion  of  sin, 
set  up  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  to  preserve  man  from 
lapsing  into  its  power.  This  same  love  extends  in 
a  continuous  unbroken  stream  from  Adam  to  Christ, 
from  Eden  to  Calvary — at  the  beginning  small  and 
still,  at  its  consummation  broad  and  irresistible.  In 
the  Mosaic  teaching  are  visible  the  tender  fibres 
of  the  more  mature  Christian  theology.  The  realm 
of  morals  is  subject  to  a  law  of  development  as 
real  as  that  which  governs  in  the  kingdom  of 
nature. 

A  trial-command  being  necessary  in  the  nature 
of  things,  God  is  represented  as  reducing  it  into 
as  simple  and  easy  an  ordeal  as  possible.  Any 
hard  task,  such  as  a  sudden  summons  to  the  first 
man  to  choose  between  good  and  evil  in  their  higher 
and  more  complex  forms,  would  transcend  his  will- 
power, hitherto  lying  dormant.  The  trial  should 
be  on  the  level  of  his  experience,  and  strictly  within 
the  scope  of  his  capacity.  On  this  ground  alone  is 
the  simplicity  of  the  probation  explicable.  "  And 
God  commanded  the  man,  saying.  Of  every  tree  of 


man's  innocence  and  probation        219 

the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat ;  but  of  the  Tree 
of  Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil  thou  shalt  not  cat  ; 
for  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely 
die."  Can  you  conceive  a  simpler,  easier  ordeal  ? 
I  candidly  confess,  I  cannot.  I  can  easily  imagine 
a  severer  test,  but  I  cannot  picture  a  simpler.  If 
God  had  commanded  him  to  abstain  wholly  from 
all  food  for  twenty-four  hours,  if  He  had  forbidden 
him  to  partake  of  the  fruit  of  any  tree  for  that  space 
of  time,  the  trial  would  have  been  a  trifle  severer, 
though  not  very  severe  even  then.  But  the  actual 
test  is  incomparably  easier — so  easy  that  it  demands 
abstinence  only  from  one  tree,  whilst  free  access 
is  accorded  to  all  other  trees.  The  extreme  sim- 
plicity of  the  test  suggests  the  divineness  of  its 
origin  :  man  writing  from  the  riches  of  his  imagina- 
tion would  assuredly  have  fixed  on  a  more  difficult 
task.  "  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest 
freely  eat ;  but  of  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  of  Good 
and  Evil  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it."  Of  every  tree 
except  one.  What  could  be  simpler?  The  test 
lies  on  the  level  of  moral  childhood.  The  devil 
in  the  temptation  was  harping  on  the  one  tree 
interdicted  ;  he  said  nothing  about  the  thousand  and 
one  trees  allowed.  Prohibition  to  eat  of  one,  per- 
mission to  eat  of  the  thousand — that  was  the  ordeal, 
and  human  imagination  may  be  challenged  to  invent 
an  easier.  If  man  therefore  fell,  he  fell  without 
the  slightest  provocation,  and  is  for  ever  without 
excuse. 

But  was  not  the  prohibition  in  itself  an  incitement    \ 
to  evil  ?      If  this  objection  were  valid,  legislation  of 
any  kind  were  inexpedient,  and  government  would 


220  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

become  impossible.  Law  properly  understood  re- 
presses, not  encourages,  evil.  St.  Paul,  it  is  true, 
declares  that  the  law  wrought  in  him  all  manner 
of  concupiscence.  Socrates  also  says  that  he  never 
had  any  desire  to  travel  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
Athens  till  an  edict  was  promulgated  that  he  should 
be  confined  within  its  walls.  Similarly  Charles 
Lamb  testifies  that,  walking  in  a  garden  with  liberty 
to  eat  freely  of  any  fruit  he  liked  except  the  one 
luscious  peach  ripening  against  the  wall,  he  felt  a 
strong  longing  for  the  one  fruit  forbidden.  "  Stolen 
waters  are  sweet."  This  experience  is  true  to  human 
nature,  but  to  human  nature  warped  and  defiled,  in 
which  disorderly  desires  already  exist  ;  in  a  heart 
pure  and  upright  there  is  no  evil  propensity  to 
respond  to  external  solicitations.  What  to  a  dis- 
honest man  might  be  an  incitement  to  robbery,  in 
the  heart  of  a  man  of  sound  probity  would  find  no 
echo.  The  Divine  interdict,  therefore,  was  neither 
cause  nor  occasion,  direct  or  indirect,  to  rebelliousness 
on  the  part  of  our  first  parents. 

Not  only  was  the  test  as  simple  as  Divine  Wisdom 
could  make  it,  but  the  environments  were  in  every 
way  favourable  to  a  successful  issue.  Were  Adam, 
an  innocent,  inexperienced  man,  forbidden  to  eat  of 
the  fruit  of  any  tree,  whilst  exposed  to  the  scorching 
heat  of  day  or  the  shivering  cold  of  night,  and 
suffering  from  the  keen  pangs  of  hunger  or  thirst, 
his  continuance  in  his  original  integrity  could  hardly 
be  expected.  Hardly,  I  say,  for  we  read  of  One, 
who  in  the  midst  of  the  dreary  wilderness,  far  away 
from  human  habitations,  surrounded  by  wild  beasts, 
enduring  the  sharp  paroxysms  of  hunger  consequent 


man's   innocence   and   probation  221 

on  His  long  fast  of  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  yet 
successfully  resisted  temptation,  refusing  to  partake 
of  food  except  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Divine 
Will — a  triumph  of  virtue,  under  disadvantageous 
circumstances,  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  the  race. 
But  Adam  was  placed  in  a  garden  ;  his  bodily 
appetences  were  abundantly  satisfied  and  his  sur- 
roundings were  in  every  way  excellent.  He  had 
every  aid  to  go  through  his  probation  triumphantly. 
Many  a  man  cannot  be  as  good  and  pure  and 
wholesome  as  he  might,  because  of  his  unclean, 
dismal,  ungodly  surroundings,  which  act  like  a  heavy 
drag  upon  his  better  aspirations.  Adam,  on  the 
contrary,  had  no  adverse  circumstances  to  contend 
with — he  was  a  sinless  man,  with  ideal  environments, 
in  a  perfect  abode.  The  trial  was  reduced  to  a 
minimum,  whilst  the  advantages  were  multiplied  to 
a  maximum.  Can  you  imagine  an  improvement  in 
one  single  iota  ?  To  suggest  that  the  trial  should 
be  dispensed  with  altogether  is  simply  to  demand 
the  impossible.  Given  a  rational  creature,  a  trial 
of  some  kind  is  a  necessity  ;  for  there  can  be  no 
development  of  the  moral  nature  without  self- 
determination,  a  decisive  act  of  free  will,  and  this 
is  possible  only  in  the  presence  of  a  command. 

But  why  not  a  moral  command  ?  For  the  obvious 
reason  that  the  positive  must  always  precede  the 
moral,  that  the  reign  of  the  external  prepares  the 
way  for  the  dominance  of  the  internal.  That  is 
the  case  in  the  family.  Through  a  series  of  positive 
commands,  issuing  from  the  father  or  mother,  or  both, 
the  child  is  trained  to  apprehend  the  moral  ;  and  if 
failure  ensue  in  the  positive,  much  more  would  it  in 


222  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

the  moral  sphere.  The  same  principle  is  followed 
in  the  Divine  education  of  the  world  at  large.  The 
Mosaic  legislation  for  the  religious  culture  of  Israel 
is  chiefly  positive,  to  train  mankind  to  habits  of 
obedience.  When  these  habits  are  formed,  the 
outward  ceremonialism  is  dismissed,  and  men  are 
thrown  back  upon  their  inner  moral  principles ; 
under  the  Christian  dispensation  men  are  guided  by 
the  inner  law  written  in  the  heart.  The  dog  is  not 
allowed  to  follow  freely  his  own  impulses — he  is 
broken  in,  trained,  disciplined  by  a  series  of  positive 
commands  and  prohibitions,  which  are  not  contrary 
to  instinct.  The  canine  nature  is  seen  to  better 
advantage  in  the  dog  carefully  trained  by  positive 
commandments  than  in  the  dog  running  wild  in  the 
streets.  Thus  man  had  in  him  the  dormant  capacity 
for  highest  morality.  That,  instead  of  being  a 
reason  for  permitting  him  to  work  out  at  random 
his  instincts,  constituted  a  reason  why  he  should 
be  trained,  disciplined,  and  taught  obedience — not 
obedience  simply  to  his  own  impulses,  but  obedience 
in  the  sense  of  submission  to  a  higher  Will,  external 
to  himself  In  this  alone  morality  first  emerges. 
Human  nature  shows  to  better  advantage  trained 
than  untrained,  and  it  cannot  be  trained  except  in 
the  presence  at  the  outset  of  positive  regulations. 
The  first  postulate  of  morality  is  the  recognition 
of  a  higher  Will. 

The  object  in  view,  as  already  intimated,  in  the 
subjection  of  man  to  a  disciplinary  course,  prescribed 
by  an  external  Will,  was  the  fortifying  of  his  will 
in  favour  of  God  and  goodness.  In  the  develop- 
ment of  the  human  will  two  stages  are  discernible. 


man's  innocence  and  probation        223 

The  first  is  that  wherein  the  will  blindly  follows 
instinct — a  state  of  unconsciousness  of  good.  But 
that  is  not  the  highest  form  of  character.  By 
freely,  deliberately  resolving  in  favour  of  good,  and 
in  antagonism  to  evil,  the  will  gradually  fuses  with 
goodness,  and  reaches  the  second  permanent  stage 
of  its  development — not  a  state  of  unconsciousness 
of  good,  but  a  state  of  unconsciousness  in  good. 
Thus  through  the  identification  of  the  will  with 
the  propensities,  and  all  with  goodness,  a  state 
of  perfect  freedom  is  attained,  resembling  the  free- 
dom of  the  Supreme.  God  possesses  infinite  liberty 
of  will,  restricted  by  nothing  outside  His  own  nature 
— He  is  infinitely  free  to  choose  ;  but  His  will  is 
so  inextricably  bound  up  with  goodness  that  it 
is  impossible  for  Him  to  choose  evil.  Had  Adam 
endured  the  trial  in  a  spirit  of  obedience,  he  would 
have  gradually  mounted  up  to  the  enjoyment  of 
Hberty  in  the  Divine  likeness — a  state  in  which 
it  would  not  be  possible  for  him  to  sin. 

With  the  Christian,  his  nature  already  rent  and 
torn  asunder  by  sin,  the  problem  is.  How  to 
make  the  instincts  move  along  the  rails  of  the  will  ? 
His  will,  since  conversion,  is  determined  for  good  ; 
it  unmistakably  points  to  God  as  the  magnetic 
needle  to  the  pole,  with  probably  slight  variations 
and  disturbances  ;  but  always  in  calm  weather, 
when  the  storms  of  the  passions  have  subsided  and 
the  allurements  of  sense  have  passed  away,  it  settles 
steadfastly  in  the  direction  of  God.  His  instincts, 
however,  rebel  and  gravitate  earthward.  "  For  the 
good  that  I  would  I  do  not :  but  the  evil  which  I 
would  not,  that  I  do.  .  .  .  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of 


224  PRIiMEVAL   REVELATION 

God  after  the  inward  man :  but  I  sec  another  law 
in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my 
mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law 
of  sin  which  is  in  my  members"  (Rom.  vii.  19-23). 
In  the  case  of  the  Christian  the  problem  consequently 
is,  How  to  make  the  instincts  move  on  the  lines  of 
the  will,  the  law  of  the  members  obey  the  law  of 
the  spirit? 

In  the  case  of  the  first  man,  however,  the  problem 
was  the  very  reverse,  to  wit,  How  to  make  the  will 
move  in  the  direction  of  the  instincts?  The  instincts 
like  young  tendrils  were  all  climbing  Godward 
and  heavenward.  The  history  of  the  Tree  of  Know- 
ledge of  Good  and  Evil  is  only  an  account  of  the 
Divine  Method  of  training  the  human  will  in  the 
same  direction,  so  that,  instead  of  the  will  de- 
pending on  the  instincts,  they,  like  Virginia 
creepers,  might  cling  to  it,  finding  in  it  their  sure 
support,  and  adorning  it  with  all  the  beautiful  flowers 
of  Eden.  Thus  the  natural  and  moral  would  be- 
come one ;  and  in  this  oneness  man  would  attain 
perfect  liberty — not  liberty  from  law,  but  liberty  in 
law,  liberty  similar  to  that  of  the  swallow  on  the  wing. 
Liberty,  swallow  :  in  Hebrew  the  two  words  are  the 
same  {dcror).  Behold  the  swallow  of  a  summer 
evening  :  how  swiftly  she  shoots  through  the  serene 
air,  how  gracefully  she  curves  to  the  right  and  to 
the  left,  how  elegantly  she  soars  upwards  or  darts 
downwards!  She  is  the  very  embodiment  of  the 
idea  of  liberty.  This  was  the  kind  of  freedom  Adam 
was  destined  to  enjoy  had  he  remained  loyal  to  his 
Maker ;  and  the  trial  command  was  given  on  purpose 
to  lead  him  on  to  the  higher  reaches  of  this  liberty. 


man's  innocence  and  probation        225 

to  that  exalted  region  where  the  nature  of  man  melts 
into  the  soul  of  goodness,  and  the  will  of  man  sur- 
renders itself  wholly  to  the  will  of  God,  so  that 
temptation  would  fall  irresponsive  at  his  feet,  finding 
in  him,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  not  one  vulnerable 
point. 

God's  probation  of  Adam  was  graciously  designed 
to  lead  to  his  progress  in  holiness  and  advancement 
in  happiness  ;  the  devil's  temptation  it  was  which 
led  to  his  downfall  and  sin  :  a  distinction  which 
should  be  always  borne  in  mind. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   TEMPTATION   AND   FALL 

WE  cannot  escape  from  the  question,  Is  this 
account  to  be  viewed  as  myth,  legend, 
poetry,  or  history  ?  It  strikes  one  at  once  that, 
if  it  be  not  unworthy  or  puerile  as  myth  or  poetry, 
it  cannot  be  incongruous  or  unnatural  as  history. 

I.  Waiving  for  the  present  the  discussion  of  the 
central  facts,  there  are  subsidiary  considerations 
which  at  least  suggest,  if  they  do  not  justify,  its 
historic  truth.  Mention  is  made  of  two  trees,  the 
Tree  of  Life  and  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  of  Good 
and  Evil ;  it  is  affirmed  that  a  serpent  seduced 
our  first  parents  by  persuading  them  to  eat  of  the 
forbidden  fruit,  and  that,  listening  to  the  blandish- 
ments of  the  tempter  in  preference  to  the  voice 
of  God,  they  fell  into  sin,  and  thence  into  wretched- 
ness. Turning  to  heathen  mythologies,  we  find  all 
these  features  reproduced,  not  with  the  same  moral 
proportion  and  mental  sobriety,  but  still  with  their 
resemblance  unmistakable. 

Take,  to  begin  with,  the  Babylonian  tradition,  in 
which  various  references  arc  made  to  the  serpent. 
Mr.  Chad  Boscawcn's  recent  book  contains  an 
impression   of  a  Babylonian  seal,  discovered  by  the 

226 


THE  TEMPTATION   AND   FALL  227 

lamented  Mr.  George  Smith,  and  now  exhibited  in 
the  British  Museum,  giving  a  pictorial  representa- 
tion of  the  Temptation,  almost  identical  with  the 
samplers  wrought  in  thread  by  our  grandmothers, 
and  still  hanging  on  the  walls  of  our  country  houses. 
Two  human  figures  are  limned,  sitting  one  on  each 
side  of  a  tree,  from  the  branches  of  which  are 
suspended  bunches  of  luscious  fruit,  and,  behind 
the  woman,  rearing  his  head  above  hers  in  the 
direction  of  the  fruit,  is  the  undulating  form  of  a 
serpent.  What  Moses  says  in  words  the  Babylonian 
seal  teaches  in  symbols.  Take  again  the  following 
Babylonian  hymn,  composed  at  a  date  anterior  to  the 
seventeenth  century  before  Christ — that  is,  about  or 
before  the  time  Abraham  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  : 

That  which  was  forbidden  by  my  God, 

with  my  mouth  I  ate; 
That  which  was  forbidden  by  my  goodness, 

in  my  ignorance  I  trampled  upon. 

Again  in  the  same  hymn  : 

The  forbidden  thing  did  I  eat ; 

The  forbidden  thing  did  I  trample  upon. 

Again,  if  we  examine  the  Aryan  traditions  the 
basal  notes  are  the  same.  They  expatiate  on  the 
fertile  garden  on  the  tableland  of  Asia,  with  its  two 
trees  and  four  rivers.  In  that  garden  the  first  pair 
began  life,  exempt  from  guilt,  free  from  turpitude, 
holding  fellowship  with  Vishnu  (the  Sanskrit  God). 
At  last,  listening  to  the  enticements  of  7iaga,  a 
serpent — a  term  in  which  some  have  detected  an 
echo  of  the  Hebrew  word  nachash — they  kept  not 


228  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

their  first  estate,  but  fell  under  the  dominion  of 
evil.  At  length,  however,  the  serpent's  head  is 
trampled  under  the  foot  of  a  strong  man  of  the 
human  race,  and  his  influence  thereby  destroyed — a 
distinct  echo  of  the  promise  of  the  Seed  of  the 
Woman  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 

In  the  Persian  records  the  resemblances  are  still 
more  striking.  In  them  also  is  pourtrayed  a  garden, 
where  is  "  neither  day  nor  night,  nor  icy  wind  nor 
burning  heat,  nor  sickness  which  is  the  cause  of 
numerous  deaths,  nor  defilement  produced  by  the 
dsvas."  In  the  midst  lies  a  placid  lake,  from  which 
the  waters  of  immortality  flow  forth  in  four  rivers. 
The  two  mystic  trees  are  growing  there  also, 
possessing  extraordinary  qualities  for  good  or  for 
evil.  "  In  this  garden,  Yama,  the  first  man  passes 
his  existence  in  the  enjoyment  of  Edenic  blessedness, 
till  falling  into  sin  he  is  cast  out  and  given  up  to 
the  power  of  the  serpent,  who  finally  brings  about 
his  death  by  horrible  torments.  A  later  form  of  the 
legend  makes  the  first  pair  live  one  thousand  years 
in  abiding  fellowship  with  Ormuzd  (the  good  God), 
humble  in  heart,  pure  in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  free 
from  every  evil  and  defect,  and  anticipating  heaven 
as  the  reward  of  their  continued  innocence.  By-and- 
by,  however,  an  evil  demon  sent  by  Ahriman  (the 
wicked  God),  and  assuming  the  guise  of  a  serpent, 
intrudes  himself  into  their  peaceful  abode.  First,  he 
instils  into  their  minds  suspicious  thoughts  concern- 
ing Ahuramazda ;  then,  becoming  bolder,  offers 
them  the  fruit  of  the  wonderful  Tree  of  Life,  or  of 
another  tree  which  he  causes  to  spring  up  beside  it ; 
and  finally  completes  their  seduction.     As  a  conse- 


THE   TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  229 

quence  evil  inclinations  arise  within  their  hearts,  their 
moral  excellence  departs,  the  happiness  which  they 
have  hitherto  enjoyed  disappears,  they  arc  banished 
from  their  garden  home.  Becoming  dwellers  in  the 
bleak  and  sterile  country  beyond  the  precincts  of 
Paradise,  they  betake  themselves  to  hunting,  and 
begin  to  clothe  themselves  with  the  skins  of  wild 
beasts."  ^ 

In  all  these  legends  do  you  not  clearly  discern 
distinct  echoes  of  the  Mosaic  history  of  the  Fall  ? 
How  to  account  for  these  striking  similarities  ?  Evi- 
dently they  were  not  the  creations  of  these  several 
nations  in  independence  of  each  other — they  must 
have  had  one  common  source  in  the  remote  past. 
Myths  or  legends  analogous  to  each  other,  giving 
embodiment  to  general  truths,  may  simultaneously 
grow  up,  without  international  relations,  in  different 
countries.  Myths  concerning  the  Fall  may  thus 
arise.  A  restlessness  characterises  man,  wherever  he 
dwells  and  whichever  state  he  is  in.  Be  he  rich  or 
poor,  learned  or  illiterate,  the  discord  pervades  his 
life,  and  deeper  than  the  dissonance  is  the  protest 
against  it.  How  to  account  for  this  discordant 
condition  ?  Men,  howsoever  divided,  are  constrained 
by  one  common  force  to  attribute  it  to  a  moral 
cataclysm  somewhere  near  the  source  of  human 
history.  Myths  spring  up  independently  of  each 
other,  but  similar  in  import  and  construction,  because 
proceeding  from  one  common  underground  of  ex- 
perience. But  when  this  mishap  is  connected  with  a 
tree  and  a  serpent,  an  interdict  on  the  tree  and  the 
disregard    thereof  by  the  first  man,  and  all  this  by 

*  Lenormant,  ContemJ>orary  Review,  Sept.  1879  and  1891. 


230  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

different  nations  having  but  few  other  things  in 
common,  the  difficulty  of  explaining  their  likeness 
is  increased.  The  figures  are,  if  one  may  say  so, 
fanciful  ;  there  is  no  common  substratum  in  human 
experience  to  sufficiently  account  for  their  contem- 
poraneous appearance  in  literature  and  theology. 
The  reason  for  the  resemblance  must  be  sought,  not 
in  the  subjective  working  of  fancy,  but  in  a  primitive 
objective  source,  a  historic  tradition  stretching  back 
to  a  remote  past. 

Preference  is  given  to  the  Hebrew  account  over 
the  Hindoo  and  Iranian  myths,  because  of  its  superior 
theological  proportion  and  literary  sobriety.  It  is 
free  from  redundancies  and  deficiencies ;  it  has  no 
striking  exaggerations  or  palpable  defects.  It  stands 
foursquare  to  human  experience.  In  all  heathen 
mythologies  the  facts  are  more  or  less  disfigured  ; 
but,  instead  of  invalidating  the  Mosaic  account,  the 
disfigurements  pay  tribute  to  it,  and  demonstrate 
the  existence  of  the  story  before  the  dispersion  of 
the  nations  from  their  original  home.  It  is  a  part 
of  their  common  dowry.  The  prevalence  of  the 
legend  in  countries  widely  separated,  so  far  from 
discrediting  the  Mosaic  account,  tends  directly  to 
prove  that  it  had  an  objective  historic  basis.  If  the 
Genesis  writer  does  not  here  record  the  truth, 
historical  as  well  as  doctrinal,  then  mankind  are 
ignorant  of  the  circumstances  of  the  direst  calamity 
which  befell  the  race ;  and  whilst  maintaining  that 
much  truth  has  been  made  known  by  the  combined 
action  of  the  revelation  of  God  and  the  inspiration 
of  man,  the  truth  concerning  our  Fall — the  most 
important  to   us    next   to   the  truth   respecting   our 


THE   TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  23 1 

Salvation,  and  around  which  the  minds  of  men  have 
always  wistfully  revolved  endeavouring  to  peer  into 
its  secrets — has  been  concealed  from  our  view.  If 
we  believe  in  the  revelation  of  truths  of  minor  im- 
portance, I  cannot  bring  myself  to  believe  that  this 
should  remain  unrevealed.  St.  Paul  evidently  believed 
in  the  historicity  of  Genesis,  for  once  and  again  he 
bases  an  argument  on  the  story  of  the  serpent ;  and 
I  have  sufficient  respect  for  St.  Paul  to  assume  that 
he  would  not  found  an  argument  on  a  legend.  A 
legend  may  answer  a  good  purpose  as  an  illustration 
in  a  discourse,  but  will  not  serve  as  a  foundation  for 
the  superstructure  of  an  argument. 

II.  Be  the  drapery  mythical,  legendary,  or  poetic, 
the  central  facts  remain  incontestable,  underlying  all 
subsequent  history,  and  refusing  to  be  ignored  or 
explained  away. 

First,  there  must  have  been  a  first  man  and  first 
woman.  Without  a  first  there  cannot  be  a  hundredth. 
One  is  the  foundation  of  all  numbers.  The  primeval 
existence  of  Adam  and  Eve  is  a  postulate  of  the 
existence  of  the  1,500,000,000  of  mankind  to-day. 
Second,  the  first  man  and  woman  must  have  lived 
somewhere.  Even  on  the  evolutionary  hypothesis, 
that  "  somewhere  "  must  have  been  a  locality  favour- 
able to  their  first  leap  upward  to  manhood,  and  to 
their  continuance  thereafter  in  that  developed  state. 
A  climate  of  extreme  inclemency  on  the  one  hand, 
or  of  excessive  heat  on  the  other,  would  impede, 
not  promote,  their  unfolding.  The  soil  must  have 
been  genial,  the  climate  temperate.  All  this  coincides 
exactly  with  the  Mosaic  narrative.  Third,  the  first 
man  and  woman  must  have  had  a   beginning,  and 


232  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

therefore  of  necessity  a  commencement  in  moral 
development,  intellectual  enlightenment,  and  manual 
labour.  There  must  have  been  a  first  step  in  each 
of  these  pursuits.  What  more  natural  than  that 
man's  first  occupation  should  be  that  of  a  tiller  of 
the  ground  to  satisfy  his  physical  necessities,  that 
his  mental  education  should  start  with  the  study  of 
the  use  to  which  he  might  convert  the  animals  around 
him,  and  that  his  moral  development  should  begin 
by  the  subjugation  of  the  bodily  appetences  to  the 
government  of  reason  ?  The  w^hole  story  so  far  wears 
the  aspect  of  verisimilitude.  Fourth,  humanity  has 
lapsed  into  sin,  and,  consequently,  into  misery. 
Human  sin  atheistic  science  may,  but  human 
misery  it  cannot,  deny.  Theistic  philosophy,  how- 
ever, has  never  controverted  either  ;  on  the  contrary, 
it  has  taxed  to  the  utmost  its  ingenuity  to  account 
for  the  undeniable  moral  disorder,  and  the  consequent 
physical  suffering  of  the  race.  "  All  have  sinned  ; 
there  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one,"  is  the  testimony 
of  philosophy  no  less  than  of  the  Bible,  of  Greek 
sages  no  less  than  of  Hebrew  prophets,  of  heathen 
poets  no  less  than  of  Christian  apostles. 

From  the  universality  of  sin,  philosophy  has  in- 
ferred that  the  fountain  must  have  somehow  become 
troubled  and  embittered.  The  manner  it  cannot 
explain,  though  it  has  often  made  the  attempt. 
But  of  the  fact  of  a  Fall,  and  that  near  the  be- 
ginning of  history,  it  entertains  no  manner  of  doubt. 
"  If  moral  evil  be  a  reality,  then  it  must  have  had 
a  commencement,  and  that  commencement  must 
be  sought  for  in  the  great  head  of  humanity,  the 
primus  homo  from  whom  all  the  race  has  descended. 


THE   TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  233 

The  hypothesis  that  sin  may  have  broken  in  upon 
mankind  at  a  stage  later  than  the  beginning  is  not 
one  that  has  ever  been  seriously  formulated.  The 
solidarity  of  the  race  and  the  law  of  heredity  in 
morals  render  it  at  least  the  more  probable  assump- 
tion that  the  spiritual  decay  under  which  the  race 
now  pines  fell  upon  it  in  the  person  of  its  original 
progenitor.  No  system  of  philosophy  that  recognises 
sin  to  be  a  reaHty  entertains  a  suspicion  that  the 
first  sinner  was  not  the  first  man.  It  may  offer 
explanations  as  to  how  sin  arose  that  are  inconsis- 
tent with  the  Biblical  account,  saying  that  sin  is  of 
necessity  involved  in  the  conception  of  a  finite 
being,  or  in  the  historical  transition  of  humanity  from 
a  state  of  nature  to  a  state  of  culture  ;  but  it  does 
not  call  in  question  that  sin  did  arise,  that  man  did 
not  enter  on  the  stage  of  time  in  a  state  of  sin,  but  in 
a  state  of  innocence,  and  that  he  passed  from  the 
one  to  the  other  through  his  own  personal  volition."  ^ 
These  four  facts  are  incontrovertible,  apart  alto- 
gether from  the  Mosaic  account.  They  are  insisted 
upon  in  ethnic  poetry,  mythology,  and  philosophy. 
Deny  the  inspiration  of  Genesis,  disregard  the 
Mosaic  presentation,  the  facts  still  remain,  consti- 
tuting the  foundation  on  which  is  constructed  both 
Hebrew  and  Christian  theology,  nay,  the  basis  on 
which  natural  religion  itself  is  built.  An  honest 
avowal  of  these  four  facts  will  make  room  in  their 
due  time  for  all  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
Underneath  all  religions,  natural  and  revealed,  mytho- 
logical and  historical,  underneath  all  poetry  and 
philosophy,  lie  these  facts,  hard  as  granite,  and 
1  Whitelaw,  Patriarchal  Times,  pp.  93,  94. 


234  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

laying  hold  on  the  core  of  history.  Being  the  first 
postulates  of  the  historical  conscience,  they  are  in 
a  sense  independent  of  Moses  and  all  other  writers. 
What  claim  then  do  we  advance  on  behalf  of 
Moses?  Not  that  he  first  revealed  the  facts,  for 
these  belong  to  natural  as  well  as  supernatural 
theology ;  but  that  he  first  presented  these  facts  in 
a  credible  historical  setting.  The  authenticity  of 
the  central  facts,  so  clearly  and  concisely  presented 
to  us,  goes  a  long  way  to  prove  that  the  frame  is 
not  altogether  the  filigree  of  imagination.  Natural 
facts  are  described  under  supernatural  light,  thus 
forming  a  proper  basis  for  the  supernatural  religion 
which  is  to  follow. 

III.  Behind  the  serpent  and  inspiring  it  was  the 
tempter,  a  wicked  invisible  spirit.  As  man  derived 
his  inspiration  from  God,  so  the  serpent  derived  its 
inspiration  from  the  devil. 

The  evil  spirit  is  not  here  mentioned  by  name  ; 
and  yet  one  cannot  seriously  read  the  narrative 
without  suspecting  a  secret  evil  power  behind.  The 
obvious  incompetency  of  the  brute  serpent  to  the 
achievement  of  the  task  of  tempting  two  rational 
beings  necessitates  the  mind  to  peer  behind  the 
curtain,  and  seek  an  adequate  cause.  Of  the  serpent 
it  is  said  that  it  was  more  subtil  than  all  the  beasts 
of  the  field  ;  but  its  subtilty  was  not  equal  to  think- 
ing, speaking,  arguing — in  all  this  it  transcends  the 
limits  of  brute  intelligence.  Accordingly  every 
sincere  reader  feels  instinctively  that  the  serpent 
hides  a  mystery,  that  it  is  not  the  source,  but  the 
channel,  of  evil. 

Moses  does  not  name  the  tempter  :  did  he  know 


THE  TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  235 

the  devil  was  the  inspirer  of  the  serpent  ?     Probably 
not ;  and  if  he  did  know,  Divine   Wisdom    did    not 
think  it  proper  to  reveal  the  doctrine  of  the  existence 
of  evil   spirits   to    mankind   in   the    period   of   their 
childhood.     The    doctrine    of    evil   as   embodied    in 
a  host  of  malicious  spirits  was  not  for  the  childhood, 
but   for   the    manhood,   of   the   race.     Belief  in  evil 
spirits,   always    lying    in    ambush    for    them,   would 
overwhelm  mankind  with  disaster— they  would    fear 
the    devil    more    than    God  ;    consequently   demon- 
worship   would   usurp   the   service   of  Jehovah.     On 
the  Khassia  hills,  where  a  successful  mission  is  carried 
on   by   our    Church,   though   the   natives   believe   in 
a    good    God    as  well  as   in  evil  spirits,  the  worship 
is  wholly  offered  to  demons.     The  good  God,  argue 
these   subtle   thinkers   of    the   mountains,   need    not 
be  conciliated  ;    but   the    demons   must  be  flattered, 
cajoled,   worshipped,   else    they   will    send    upon   us 
misfortunes     and     pestilences.       Neither    were     the 
Hebrews    in    the   days   of   Moses,   nor   for  centuries 
after,  sufficiently  robust  morally  to  bear  the  revelation 
of  the   doctrine   of  evil   spirits— they  would  misuse 
it   to   the    subversion    of  their   high  destiny.     As  it 
was,   they    continually    lapsed   into    nature-worship, 
the  'adoration  of  the  gods  representing  the  forces  of 
nature;    from  demon-worship   they  were   graciously 
preserved,  because  the  doctrine  of  evil  spirits  remained 

unrevealed. 

But,  though  the  devil  is  not  specifically  mentioned, 
his  presence  looms  in  the  blackness  of  the  mystery. 
A  serpent  speaking,  arguing,  theologising !  Behind 
the  serpent  there  must  be  a  dark  evil  intelligence. 
The  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  devil  in  subsequent 


236  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Scriptures  is  found  here ;  there  is  a  void  which 
needs  to  be  filled.  The  devil,  assuming  the  shape, 
or  probably  using  as  an  instrument,  a  real  material 
serpent,  took  advantage  of  man's  probation  to  graft 
upon  it  his  temptation.  How  the  devil  attained 
knowledge  of  the  newly  created  pair,  and  their  where- 
abouts, is  a  mystery  we  cannot  fathom  ;  not  because 
of  the  intrinsic  profundity  of  the  problem,  but 
because  of  our  total  ignorance  of  the  conditions 
and  capabilities  of  incorporeal  existences.  Milton's 
glowing  picture  of  the  devil's  hazardous  voyage  of 
discovery,  from  the  nether  darkness  through  the 
empty  spaces  of  the  universe,  excites  within  us  a 
sense  of  admiration  for  the  genius  which  could  draw 
such  a  masterly  picture  ;  but  it  contributes  nothing 
to  our  theological  knowledge. 

More  to  the  point  is  the  contention  of  Kurtz, 
Delitzsch,  and  others,  that  the  evil  spirits,  in  their 
pristine  holy  estate,  were  the  inhabitants  of  this 
planet,  and  that  in  consequence  of  their  insurrection 
against  the  Sovereign  Will,  the  earth  became  toJm 
vabohu — without  form  and  void.  Thus  they  place 
the  fall  of  the  angels  in  our  earth,  and  historically 
between  vers,  i  and  2  of  chap.  i.  of  Genesis.  To 
those  who  love  the  strange  and  abnormal,  the 
supposition  is  full  of  weirdness  and  fascination. 
However,  I  see  no  Scriptural  or  other  support 
to  it  beyond  the  indisputable  fact  that  evil  and 
good  spirits  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
man,  are  cognisant  of  the  geography  of  the  earth, 
and  live  in  contiguity  to  it.  What  the  nature  of 
the  connection  is  we  cannot  tell  ;  that  it  exists  from 
the  beginning  seems  indisputable. 


THE   TEMPTATION   AND   FALL 


237 


To  the  temptation  of  Adam  and  Eve  by  the  evil 
spirit  doubtless  the  Lord  Jesus  refers  in  John  viii.  44 : 
"  He  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  abode 
not  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him. 
When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own, 
for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it."  The  crime 
laid  to  his  charge  is  that  of  murder,  not  simply 
of  manslaughter  ;  and  murder  always  carries  with 
it  intention,  purpose,  deliberateness.  This  drives 
home  to  the  devil  the  direst,  blackest  crime  without 
any  extenuating  circumstances.  "  He  abode  not  in 
the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him."  The 
worst  men  in  this  life  are  not  totally  destitute  of 
conscience  ;  they  have  in  them  grains  of  truth  which 
form  a  basis  for  the  Gospel  to  rest  its  fulcrum  upon. 
But  in  the  devil  not  a  vestige  of  conscience  is  left ; 
"  in  him  there  is  no  truth,"  not  an  atom. 

This  fell,  cunning  foe  it  was  which  approached 
our  first  parents  in  Eden  to  tempt  them  to  their 
ruin.  He  was  not  permitted  to  appear  as  an  angel 
of  light ;  persuasion  to  eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit 
by  one  bearing  such  heavenly  credentials  would 
almost  necessarily  compel  credence.  He  draws  near 
in  the  guise  of  a  serpent,  the  vilest  creature  on 
earth,  the  only  brute  which  manufactures  poison. 
That  the  serpent  before  the  Fall  differed  in  shape 
or  organism  from  the  serpent  tribe  of  the  present 
day  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  of  the  older  theo- 
logians— geology  proves  the  contrary.  To  serpents 
human  nature  has  an  instinctive  aversion,  which 
cannot  be  wholly  ascribed  to  the  "  enmity  "  mentioned 
in  the  sentence  God  pronounced  on  the  serpent. 
A    similar   aversion    exists    between    humanity   and 


238  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

most  reptiles,  not  altogether  as  the  consequence  of 
the  curse,  but  from  a  healthy,  natural  shrinking  of 
human  nature.  Had  sin  never  entered  the  world, 
mankind  would  have  shrunk  from  snakes,  for  snake- 
bites would  be  poisonous  then  as  they  are  now. 
I  do  not  believe  the  lithe  form,  the  shining  skin, 
the  glittering  eye  of  the  brute  had,  as  described 
by  some  writers,  any  fascination  for  the  first  woman 
— her  feminine  nature  instinctively  recoiled  from 
such  a  reptile. 

What  then  was  it  that  arrested  her  attention  and 
commanded  her  regard?  That  the  reptile  should 
speak  !  The  miracle  overwhelmed  her  sense  of  the 
moral.  Instead  of  judging  the  miracle  by  the 
moral,  she  judged  the  moral  by  the  miracle — a 
temptation  against  which  the  Lord  often  warns  the 
Israelites  in  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Later  on  we  read  of  Balaam's  ass  which  spoke. 
In  the  New  Testament,  the  phenomenon  of  the 
Gadara  swine  rushing  headlong  to  the  sea,  under 
the  frightful  ferment  wrought  in  them  by  the 
entrance  of  evil  spirits,  has  arrested  attention  and 
provoked  discussion.  In  some  mysterious  way  both 
good  and  evil  spirits  seem  to  have  the  power  to 
exert  subtle  influence  on  animal  nature.  According 
to  the  Genesis  record,  the  serpent  spoke.  Eve,  who 
was  a  help  meet  for  Adam  in  intellect  as  well  as 
in  other  respects,  knew  that  speech  was  not  a 
quality  inherent  in  the  animal  world.  The  miracle 
created  surprise  and  wonderment,  prepared  her  to 
subordinate  the  moral  to  the  physical.  Milton 
represents  the  case  differently — teaching  that  Eve, 
in   her  ignorance,  did   not   suspect  that    the    faculty 


THE  TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  239 

of   Speech    was    not    innate    in    the   serpent.      The 
devil,  he  says,  chose  the  serpent, 

Fit  vessel,  fittest  imp  of  fraud,  in  whom 
To  enter,  and  his  dark  suggestions  hide 
From  sharpest  sight ;  for  in  the  wily  snake, 
Whatever  sleights,  none  would  suspicion  mark, 
As  from  his  wit  and  native  subtilty 
Proceeding  ;  which,  in  other  beasts  observed. 
Doubt  might  beget  of  diabolical  power, 
Active  within  beyond  the  sense  of  brute. ^ 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  apparently  adopts  the 
poet's  fancy :  "  The  reason  why  Satan  took  the  form 
of  a  beast  remarkable  for  its  subtilty  may  have  been 
that  so  Eve  might  be  the  less  upon  her  guard.  New 
as  she  was  to  all  creation,  she  may  not  have  been 
surprised  at  speech  in  an  animal  which  apparently 
possessed  almost  human  sagacity."  If  she  were  so 
new  to  creation  as  all  that,  she  could  know  nothing 
of  serpentine  sagacity  any  more  than  of  serpentine 
speech.  But  is  this  a  probable  presentation  of  the 
case?  There  is  nothing  in  the  serpentine  form  or 
face  to  suggest  the  power  of  speech  ;  I  would  sooner 
expect  it  in  a  dog,  an  ape,  or  a  horse.  The  subtilty 
possibly  refers  to  the  sinuousness  of  form,  not  to  the 
degree  of  intelligence.  Slyness  is  not  intelligence. 
It  was  the  unexpected,  not  the  expected,  power  of 
speech  in  a  reptile  that  arrested  Eve's  attention. 
This  miracle  of  speech  in  a  dumb  beast  it  was  which 
produced  surprise  and  wonderment,  and  prepared  her 
to  subordinate  the  moral  to  the  physical. 

Men  in  every  age  are  prone  to  test  the  ethical  by 
the    miraculous,    instead   of  judging   the   miraculous 
'  Paradise  Lost  \  Book  IX. 


240  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

by  the  ethical.  Here,  I  believe,  is  the  explanation, 
so  far  as  such  an  explanation  is  possible,  of  the 
success  of  the  temptation — only  I  state  it  meta- 
physically, whereas  Moses  states  it  historically. 
Many  questions  may  be  here  urged,  such  as,  How 
could  the  devil  speak  in  Hebrew  or  whichever 
language  was  spoken  by  Eve  ?  How  did  he  know 
of  the  commandment  prohibiting  the  first  pair  to 
eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit  ?  Was  he  near  at  the 
theophany  of  God  in  Eden,  and  heard  the  con- 
versation between  the  Creator  and  His  creature  ? 
Or  was  he  prowling  about  the  Garden,  and  learnt 
of  the  interdict  by  overhearing  the  conversation  of 
the  man  and  his  wife  ?  The  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  implicit  belief  in  the  historical  accuracy  of  the 
details  are  many  and  serious,  and  could  not  be 
accepted  were  it  not  for  the  greater  difficulties  of 
relegating  it  to  the  limbo  of  legend  and  myth.  Say 
that  the  story  of  the  serpent  is  an  allegory,  and 
it  follows  that  the  judgment  on  the  serpent  is  an 
allegory,  and  the  first  promise  of  the  Seed  of  the 
Woman  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head  vanishes  away. 
We  cannot  make  one  part  allegory,  and  the  rest 
history.  If  the  promise  is  historically  true,  the 
whole  narrative  stands  with  it.  The  difficulties  of 
rejecting  the  story  are  incomparably  greater  than 
those  of  accepting  it,  and  the  consequences  incom- 
parably more  serious,  none  less  than  reducing  into 
myth  or  legend  the  protevangel,  the  fundamental 
promise  of  salvation. 

But  why  did  God  permit  the  serpent  thus  to 
approach  Eve  at  all  ?  The  answer  that  it  was  the 
work  of  the  devil  does  not  solve  the  problem.     The 


THE   TEMPTATION    AND   FALL  24I 

question  of  the  man  Friday  in  Robinson  Crusoe 
at  once  occurs — "  Why  God  not  kill  the  deebil  ?  " 
Not  only  the  first  rise  of  evil  in  the  angelic  nature, 
but  the  Divine  sufferance  of  it  to  be  extended  to  the 
human  race,  and  its  uninterrupted  continuance  in  the 
world  all  these  millenniums,  are  problems  unfathom- 
able so  far  by  finite  intelligences.  When  the  drama 
of  evil  shall  have  been  completed,  the  end  may  throw 
light  upon  the  beginning  ;  at  all  events,  the  ways  of 
God  will  be  justified  to  the  conscience,  though  not 
perhaps  comprehended  by  the  intellect. 

IV.  The  temptation  took  two  forms :  first,  it 
instilled  into  the  mind  narrow,  suspicious  thoughts 
of  God's  goodness  ;  second,  it  sought  to  sever  the 
connection  in  thought  between  transgression  and 
punishment.  These  constitute  the  two  fundamental 
forms  of  temptation  in  every  age. 

First,  the  tempter  insinuates  that  God  was  un- 
necessarily severe,  harsh,  and  arbitrary.  The  tempter 
pretends  to  love  man,  and  to  be  more  solicitous 
for  his  well-being  than  God — he  beautifully  baits 
the  hook  :  "  Hath  God  indeed  said.  Ye  shall  not 
eat  of  all  the  trees  of  the  garden  ?  "  The  Hebrew 
may  convey  the  meaning,  "  Hath  God  said.  Ye 
shall  not  eat  of  every  tree  of  the  garden  ? "  but  from 
the  context,  and  especially  the  conjunction,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  meaning  is,  "  Ye  shall  not  eat  of 
any  tree."  The  insinuation  is  that  God  prohibited, 
not  one,  but  every  tree,  and  that  therefore  His 
austerity  was  unreasonable.  Eve  answers  :  "  No, 
not  every  tree,  only  one;  we  are  forbidden  to  eat 
of  one  under  penalty  of  death."  The  leaven  is  not 
long   before   it    begins    a    process    of    fermentation. 

16 


242  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

"  Oh,  only  one  ;  why  did  He  forbid  that  one?  There 
must  be  some  reason — that  one  must  be  superior 
to  all  the  others ;  God  is  jealous  of  you,  and  knows 
that  by  eating  of  it  you  will  be  on  equal  terms 
with  Himself,  knowing  good  and  evil."  He  thus 
ascribes  jealousy  to  the  Almighty,  the  attribute 
uniformly  ascribed  to  the  gods  in  all  heathen 
religions,  the  attribute  which  constitutes  the  funda- 
mental heresy  of  all  mere  human  thinking  concern- 
ing God.  According  to  Herodotus,  not  love,  but 
jealousy,  is  the  ethical  essence  of  all  pagan  deities. 
Zeus  is  especially  jealous  of  men,  and  puts  every 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  their  progress.  "This  is 
the  root  of  bitterness  "  that  has  ever  after  corrupted 
all  religions  of  man's  devising. 

The  second  point  in  the  temptation  is  the  sever- 
ance of  the  connection  between  transgression  and 
punishment  :  "  Ye  shall  not  surely  die  " — you  may 
take  of  the  fruit,  punishment  will  not  follow.  This 
radical  fallacy  has  persisted  in  the  human  mind  down 
to  the  present  hour.  You  discover  it  in  its  popular 
form  in  all  the  criminals  of  the  age,  who  imagine 
that  they  can  sin  and  not  be  caught,  that  they  can 
break  the  law  and  escape  the  punishment  threatened 
for  its  violation.  Mentally  they  break  the  absolute 
connection  between  sin  and  punishment.  This 
fundamental  mistake  makes  itself  palpably  felt  in 
some  of  the  current  theological  systems  of  the  day. 
The  denial  of  the  absolute  need,  and  the  substitu- 
tionary character,  of  the  Atonement,  arises  from 
the  belief  that  no  necessary,  indissoluble  connection 
subsists  between  sin  and  its  penalty.  Behold  here 
the  self-contradiction  of  error.     The  first  thought  in 


THE  TEMPTATION   AND  FALL  243 

the  temptation  is  the  austerity  of  God,  forbidding 
what  He  had  no  need  to  forbid,  making  that  sin 
which  was  no  sin.  The  second  thought  is  the  laxity 
of  God,  that,  notwithstanding  His  prohibition.  He 
would  repent  Him  of  the  execution  of  the  threatened 
penalty.  Let  it,  however,  be  a  fixed  principle  in 
all  our  thinking,  that  sin  and  punishment  are 
indissolubly  bound  together.  If  we  sin,  the  penalty 
must  inevitably  fall,  either  on  us  or  on  our  Surety. 
Punishment  cannot  be  severed  from  sin,  though, 
through  the  grace  of  God,  it  can  be  severed  from 
the  sinner. 

The  cunning  casuistry  of  the  serpent  beclouded 
the  intellect  of  Eve,  and  excited  within  her  curious 
desires.  The  attractive  appearance  of  the  tree  helped 
forward  the  temptation.  Injurious  growths  generally 
wear  the  colours  of  gaiety  and  gaudiness,  whereas 
the  wholesome  vegetables  are  usually  robed  in 
sombre  hues.  "  And  when  the  woman  saw  that 
the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant 
to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one 
wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and 
gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her  ;  and  he  did 
eat."  St.  Paul,  however,  draws  a  distinction  betw^een 
Adam  and  Eve,  evidently  founded  on  this  passage  : 
"  Adam  was  not  deceived ;  but  the  woman  being  de- 
ceived was  in  the  transgression"  (i  Tim.  ii.  14).  The 
serpent  beguiled  Eve  by  its  subtilty  ;  her  intellect 
becoming  dimmed,  she  was  consequently  enticed 
into  evil— a  touch  of  nature  which  makes  all  women 
kin.  But  Adam  was  not  deceived— he  transgressed 
with  the  eyes  of  his  understanding  wide  open,  he 
sinned  slowly,  deliberately,  he  threw  all  the  thought- 


244  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

fulness  of  his  nature  into  his  act,  and  this  it  was 
which  constituted  the  enormity  of  the  Fall.  He 
broke  the  commandment  because  he  preferred  break- 
ing it  to  keeping  it.  "  Adam  was  not  deceived." 
Milton  fancifully  describes  Adam  taking  the  fatal 
step  from  love  to  his  wife — Eve  without  Paradise 
being  dearer  to  him  than  Paradise  without  Eve. 
But  the  guilt  of  the  Fall  cannot  be  thus  mitigated — 
he  loved  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  the 
bias  of  his  nature  was  reversed.  The  Fall  was  not  the 
result  of  a  sudden  impulse,  but  of  a  will  consciously, 
deliberately,  knowingly  choosing  the  path  of  dis- 
obedience, preferring  sin  to  God.  The  probation  of 
God,  designed  to  develop  good,  by  the  temptation  of 
the  devil  was  converted  into  an  instrument  to  evolve 
evil.  The  fatal  step  was  taken,  the  sin  was  com- 
mitted, the  equilibrium  was  lost.     The  Fall  is  a  fact. 

V.  Accordingly  the  Mosaic  narrative  saddles  man 
with  the  responsibility  of  sin. 

True,  the  evil  spirit  is  represented  as  the  inau- 
gurator  of  sin.  It  was  he  who  sowed  the  corrupt 
seed  in  the  human  heart,  it  was  he  who  scattered 
tares  in  the  field  of  the  Divine  Husbandman  ;  but 
the  devil's  seduction  did  not  destroy  Adam's  responsi- 
bility. The  devil  and  man  were  in  partnership  ; 
but  this  did  not  imply  limited  liability.  The  two 
were  alike  steeped  in  guilt,  though  perhaps  not  to 
the  same  extent. 

Moses  clearly  exonerates  God  from  any  culpability 
for  the  existence  of  sin,  or  any  responsibility  for 
its  introduction  into  the  world.  God  is  set  forth  as 
forbidding  sin  before  its  entrance,  and  condemning 
sin   after.      This   at   once   marks   a   crreat    elevation 


THE   TEMPTATION   AND   FALL  245 

in  the  Mosaic  conception  of  the  Divine  Being.  The 
Greek  divinities,  it  is  well  known,  were  essentially 
immoral  ;  the  idea  of  holy  gods,  clean  in  the  inward 
parts,  had  not  dawned  upon  the  Greek  mind.  Other 
nations,  such  as  the  Parsees,  conceived  of  two  gods, 
one  good,  the  other  evil,  thus  evincing  that  in  their 
minds  the  idea  of  holiness  was  separable  from  that 
of  divinity.  They  did  not  conceive  of  goodness, 
holiness,  cleanness  as,  in  logical  phrase,  essential, 
not  accidental,  attributes  of  a  Divine  Being.  A  god 
might  be  virtuous  or  he  might  be  vicious.  But  Holy 
Writ  from  the  outset  assumes  goodness  as  a  necessary 
attribute  of  Godhead.  The  first  time  He  inter- 
mingles in  human  history,  He  prohibits  evil,  con- 
demns sin.  This  initial  opposition  to  evil  develops 
later  on  into  essential  holiness,  an  attribute  without 
which  God  could  not  be  God.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  same  truth  makes  a  further  advance,  and 
blossoms  into  essential  love.  "  God  is  Love."  This 
continuity  in  the  Biblical  lines  of  thought,  broadening 
and  deepening  but  never  breaking,  as  they  stretch 
forward,  cannot  but  deeply  impress  every  thoughtful 
reader,  differentiating  as  it  does  the  Hebrew  and 
Christian  revelation  from  all  the  other  so-called 
"  Sacred  Books  "  of  the  East.  Whereas  these  latter 
lower  the  tone  of  morality  as  they  proceed,  the  begin- 
ning being  loftier  and  purer  than  the  end,  the  Bible 
grows  in  spirituality  of  conception  and  purity  of 
sentiment  from  age  to  age,  ennobling  and  enlarging 
its  idea  of  the  Divine  character,  uplifting  the  standard 
of  human  morality — the  end,  whilst  growing  out  of, 
yet  transcending,  the  beginning. 

The    Mosaic   teaching,   in   respect   of  the    Divine 


246  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

attitude  towards  sin,  excels  not  only  that  of  con- 
temporary religions,  but  calmly  avoids  the  rocks 
on  which  much  modern  theology  makes  shipwreck. 
Rothe,  for  instance,  constrained  by  the  necessities 
of  his  system,  drives  the  responsibility  for  the  exist- 
ence of  sin  back  on  God  :  "  The  effort  to  separate 
evil  from  all  connection  with  the  Divine  causality 
must  ever  remain  an  idle  undertaking."  ^  Once  and 
again  he  recoils  from  this  position,  as  was  inevitable 
in  a  man  of  his  fine  moral  sensibilities  ;  but  a  theo- 
logical giant  though  he  was,  he  was  bound  in  the 
meshes  of  his  own  argument.  Other  writers,  less 
able  and  less  reverent,  have  along  other  routes  reached 
the  same  staggering  conclusion.  The  discussion  of 
these  theories  belongs  to  the  province  of  dogmatic 
theology,  and  I  only  mention  them  here  to  point 
out  that  Moses,  in  the  early  dawn  of  revelation, 
steered  clear  of  the  immoral  conceptions  of  the 
ancients,  and  of  the  metaphysical  speculations,  equally 
immoral,  of  moderns.  Though  the  first  to  state  the 
profound  problem  of  evil,  he  betrays  no  excitement, 
no  improper  eagerness  to  arrive  at  a  solution  ;  but, 
whatever  the  solution  be,  God  must  be  viewed  as  the 
antagonist,  not  the  creator,  of  moral  evil. 

The  Divine  character,  according  to  Moses,  is  un- 
tarnished. God  prohibits  sin  before,  condemns  it 
after,  its  commission.  A  healthy  moral  instinct, 
illumined  doubtless  from  above,  postulates  for  God 
complete  immunity  from  sin.  This  truth  stands  out 
in  the  forefront  of  his  writings,  and  by  it  all  sub- 
sequent revelations  must  be  judged.  What  better 
test  of  doctrine  can  any  one  desire  ?  Reading  the 
'  Efhik,  ii.,  p.  180. 


THE  TEMPTATION  AND  FALL  247 

brilliant  productions  of  modern  theologians  of  restless 
genius,  we  are  in  danger  of  becoming  bewildered, 
and  plucking  the  forbidden  fruit.  Let  us,  however, 
adopt  it  as  our  guiding  principle  that  whatever  theory 
traces  sin  up  to  God,  directly  or  indirectly,  posi- 
tively or  negatively,  that  theory  stands  condemned. 
Gabriel,  as  pourtrayed  by  Milton,  guarding  Eden, 
and  searching  therein  for  the  evil  spirit,  of  whose 
arrival  he  had  been  apprised,  with  his  wand  touched 
a  toad  crouching  at  the  ear  of  the  recumbent  Eve, 
and  at  the  touch  up  sprang  a  devil.  Young  theo- 
logians need  that  wand,  for  error  comes  to  them,  not 
in  the  guise  of  a  toad,  repulsive  to  refined  sensibilities, 
but,  more  dangerous,  arrayed  in  all  the  splendours  of 
an  angel  of  light,  attractive  and  imposing.  But  here 
is  a  wand  for  their  use — God  is  eternally,  uncom- 
promisingly inimical  to  evil.  Touch  with  it  the 
theories  launched  upon  the  sea  of  speculation  in  the 
name  of  philosophy  ;  if  they  cast  a  shadow,  even  that 
of  a  passing  cloud,  upon  the  Divine  character,  they 
must  stand  self-convicted.  "  Let  God  be  true,  and 
every  man  a  liar." 

Seeing  that  the  cause  of  sin  is  not  in  the  Creator, 
we  are  shut  in  to  the  conclusion  that  its  origin  must 
be  in  the  creature. 

Leibnitz,  in  his  celebrated  Theodicee,  accounted 
for  the  rise  of  evil  by  reason  of  the  finiteness  of 
the  creature.  Doubtless  there  is  a  sense  wherein 
this  is  true.  Given  the  idea  of  God,  infinite  in 
goodness,  and  the  possibility  of  sin  is  inconceivable. 
But  whilst  this  is  true  of  infinite  or  absolute,  it  is 
not  true  of  finite  or  relative,  goodness.  Relative 
goodness  carries  with  it  the  possibility  of  evil — the 


248  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

possibility,  not  the  necessity.  Herein  many  brilliant 
writers  have  made  a  shipwreck  of  the  faith, 
making  sin  a  necessity  instead  of  a  possibility  of  the 
finite.  Others  again,  Hegel  for  instance,  make  sin 
an  inevitable  accompaniment  of  development,  thus 
converting  the  Fall  into  a  rise,  and  sin  into  an  in- 
dispensable link  in  the  chain  of  progress.  Hegelian- 
ism,  however,  takes  for  granted  what  it  first  of  all 
ought  to  prove — that  there  was  but  one  way  for 
a  movement  forward  of  humanity,  the  one  through 
sin  and  suffering.  Moses,  with  a  deeper,  truer  insight, 
I  believe,  shows  that  there  were  two  roads  to  a 
forward  movement — one  upward  along  the  path  of 
obedience,  the  other  downward  along  the  path  of 
self-will.  Upon  the  choice  man  made  depended 
whether  his  movement  forward  should  be  a  move- 
ment upward  or  a  movement  downward.  Adam 
is  represented  standing  at  the  cross-roads,  God  ex- 
horting him  to  climb  the  upward  path,  the  serpent 
beguiling  him  to  take  the  downward.  As  the  down- 
ward appeared  the  easier,  the  downward  he  took. 

In  the  Mosaic  teaching,  therefore,  sin  is  traced 
up  to  the  free  will  of  man,  the  power  of  self-deter- 
mination with  which  he  was  endowed  at  his  creation. 
Allowing  all  legitimate  influence  to  external  tempta- 
tions and  motives,  yet  the  ultimate  motor  power 
of  the  will  lies  within  the  will  itself.  Man  has  a 
supreme  power  of  self-determination  ;  in  the  power 
of  free  will  he  touches  the  infinite,  and  is  "  as  God, 
knowing  good  and  evil."  He  here  reaches  out  to 
the  unconditioned  and  absolute.  To  inquire,  there- 
fore, for  the  cause  of  sin  behind  self-will  is  parallel 
to  seeking  the  cause  of  the  universe  in  Nihilism,  or 


THE   TEMPTATION   AND   FALL  24O 

the  cause  of  God  outside  His  own  essence.  "  Who 
asks  the  efficient  cause  of  an  evil  will  ? "  asks 
Augustine.  "  There  is  no  efficient  in  the  case,  only 
a  deficient.  Whoso  would  ask  to  see  darkness,  or 
to  hear  silence,  let  him  ask  reason  of  the  unreason- 
able, that  is,  of  sin."  ^  Man  was  free  to  choose  good 
and  pursue  it ;  he  was  also  at  liberty  to  elect  evil 
and  follow  it.  By  deciding  in  favour  of  good,  he 
would  be  acting  in  deepest  harmony  with  the  natural 
laws  of  the  physical  world,  with  his  own  original 
constitution,  yea,  in  unison  with  all  the  moral  laws 
of  the  Divine  government.  By  deciding  for  virtue, 
he  would  be  observing  all  the  laws  of  rationality, 
human  and  Divine,  and  giving  his  nature  unrestricted 
play  to  evolve  all  its  latent  capabilities  amid  the 
most  advantageous  surroundings. 

But  for  some  inexplicable  reason  he  departed  from 
the  path  of  righteousness  to  pursue  false  ideals. 
"  God  created  man  upright,  but  they  found  out  many 
inventions."  Inexplicable  reason,  I  said  ;  I  might 
go  further,  and  say  that  Adam's  choice,  and  con- 
sequently his  Fall,  is  not  only  inexplicable,  but 
unreasonable — that  is,  without  reason,  contrary  to 
reason.  It  runs  counter  to  all  the  laws  of  reason, 
human  and  Divine.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that  the 
origin  of  evil  is  a  mystery,  a  "  mystery  of  lawless- 
ness." "  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  law,"  of  all  law, 
moral  and  mental ;  a  mystery  consequently  it  will 
ever  remain,  not  because  of  its  profundity  like  the 
Divine  Being,  but  because  of  its  contradiction  to 
all  principles,  human  and  Divine.  This  makes  the 
origin  of  it  incomprehensible,  and  a  philosophy  of 
1  Z>e  Civitate  Dei,  cap.  vi. 


250  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

it  impossible.  The  philosophy  of  the  Rise  of  Man, 
or  of  the  Way  of  Salvation,  is  practicable,  for  it 
takes  place  in  accordance  with  law ;  but  the  philo- 
sophy of  the  Fall  of  Man  is  beyond  the  pale  of 
reason — the  Fall  was  not  the  observance  but  the 
violation  of  all  law.  Freedom  of  will  was  perverted 
into  arbitrariness  of  choice,  and  arbitrariness  or 
caprice  excludes  the  possibility  of  rational  explana- 
tion. Hence  the  Bible  never  degrades  the  word 
"  freedom  "  by  applyimg  it  to  the  capriciousness  of 
the  sinner.  Freedom  {ekevOepla)  is  sacredly  pre- 
served by  all  Biblical  writers  to  designate  the  free 
growth  of  men  in  good,  in  virtue,  in  holiness,  in 
congruity  with  all  that  is  deep  and  innate  in  human 
nature.  The  word  they  invariably  apply  to  the 
sinner  in  his  pursuit  of  evil  is  not  liberty,  but  bond- 
age. This  uniform  practice  by  so  many  different 
writers  seems  to  point  up  to  a  superintending  Mind. 
From  not  properly  observing  the  Scriptural  usage, 
and  consequent  limitation  of  meaning,  in  these  two 
terms,  many  of  the  angry  controversies  of  the  past 
have  arisen.  Freedom  in  its  metaphysical  sense  is 
equally  applicable  to  saint  and  sinner  ;  in  its  theo- 
logical, Scriptural  sense  to  the  saint  alone.  Hence 
Erasmus  entitled  his  book  De  Libera  Arbitrio^ 
whilst  Luther  called  his  De  Servo  Arbitrio  ;  but 
manifestly  they  were  employing  words  in  different 
significations.  Philosophically  Erasmus  was  right, 
that  freedom  in  the  sense  of  liberty  of  choice  belongs 
to  all  men  indiscriminately.  Theologically  Luther 
was  right,  that  freedom  in  the  good  sense,  the 
Scriptural  sense,  is  predicable  only  of  the  good, 
sinners  being  in  "  bondage  to  sin." 


CHAPTER   X 

THE   CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE   FALL 

THE  Creator  not  being  responsible  for  the  rise  of 
sin,  the  idea  of  it  did  not  enter  as  an  integral 
part  into  His  plan  of  the  world.  Nevertheless  God 
foresaw  its  introduction,  and  made  due  provision 
for  its  ultimate  extirpation.  When  the  constructors 
in  her  Majesty's  navy  sketch  a  man-of-war,  the  idea 
of  shipwreck  finds  no  place  in  the  plan  ;  the  ruling 
thought  is  not  how  to  make  it  sink,  but  how  to 
make  it  swim.  The  thought  of  life,  not  of  death, 
dominates  all.  Yet  present  to  the  mind  of  the  naval 
architects  is  the  possibility  of  accidents  ;  consequently 
they  provide  watertight  compartments  and  order 
lifeboats  and  swimming-belts.  The  idea  of  ship- 
wreck, however,  is  not  an  integral  part  of  the  plan 
of  the  ship.  It  is  an  accidental,  not  an  essential, 
attribute  of  the  man-of-war.  In  like  manner  the 
idea  of  sin  does  not  enter  into  the  Divine  world- 
plan  ;  but,  foreseeing  the  disaster,  God  made  due 
preparations  to  rescue  those  plunged  in  the  furious 
waves.  Chronologically  salvation  was  not  an  after- 
thought of  the  Divine  Mind,  logically  it  was. 

I.  For  the  impending  transgression  of  Adam,  the 
Supreme  Being  threatened  death  :  '*  In  the  day  thou 

251 


^^2  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  The  question 
naturally  arises,  Did  Adam  die?  Was  the  verbal 
menace  followed  by  its  actual  execution?  The 
answer  must  be  that  man  died  forensically — that  is, 
in  the  eye  of  Divine  Justice  he  forfeited  all  claims 
to  life.  He  stood  condemned  in  the  sight  of  his 
Maker. 

But  was  not  the  offence — "  the  eating  of  an  apple  " 
— too  trivial  to  be  visited  with  capital  punishment  ? 
Are  there  no  degrees  in  punishment  as  there  are 
in  sin  ?  No  doubt ;  but  the  smallest  punishment 
possible  for  sin,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  death. 
Guilt,  however  small,  calls  upon  it  the  displeasure 
of  the  Almighty  ;  the  Divine  disfavour  implies  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Divine  fellowship  ;  and  the  with- 
drawal of  the  Divine  fellowship  involves  spiritual 
death.  A  tendency  is  manifest  in  the  present  day, 
indeed  the  tendency  has  been  formulated  into  a 
theological  system  in  the  Ritschlian  school,  to  view 
guilt  as  wholly  subjective.  The  Bible,  however, 
from  start  to  finish,  it  appears  to  me,  contemplates 
sin  as  an  objective  reality,  something  truly  terrible 
between  man  and  God,  intercepting  all  agreeable 
intercommunion,  something  which  cannot  be  removed 
by  a  wave  of  the  hand  or  annihilated  by  a  wish, 
whether  human  or  Divine.  A  leading  principle, 
underlying  all  Biblical  theology,  is  that  guilt  is  a 
grim,  terrible,  objective  reality,  and  that  the  smallest 
degree  of  guilt  involves  judicial  death. 

This  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  signifying  that 
there  are  no  degrees  in  Divine  punishment ;  the 
principle  of  proportion  runs  through  all  Scripture  : 
*'  They  that  sinned  without  law  shall  also  be  judged 


THE   CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE   FALL  253 

without  law."  "  He  that  knew  the  will  of  his  Lord, 
and  did  it  not,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes." 
What  I  wish  to  say  is,  that  the  first  stripe  is  death. 
Taking  man  in  his  relation  to  God,  a  smaller  punish- 
ment than  death  cannot  be  imagined,  though  in 
death  depths  underlie  depths.  Adam  sinned,  and 
sinning,  died.  Consider  the  traitor  at  the  bar  of 
justice.  The  moment  the  verdict  of  guilty  is  re- 
turned, and  the  sentence  of  death  is  pronounced,  the 
criminal  is  in  the  eye  of  the  law  dead.  He  forfeits 
all  rights — all  rights  to  property,  to  liberty,  yea,  to 
existence  itself.  If  he  be  permitted  to  breathe 
another  week,  he  owes  it  to  the  clemency  of  the 
Crown.  Thus  Adam,  forfeited  all  rights  to  Eden,  to 
the  Divine  favour,  to  life  itself ;  and  if  he  is  permitted 
to  live  on,  it  is  wholly  through  the  prerogative  of  the 
Divine  Mercy. 

Following  the  disorganisation  of  his  objective 
relations  to  God  came  the  subjective  disorder  in  his 
inner  nature.  To  forensic  followed  moral  death. 
"  Followed,"  I  say  deliberately ;  for  it  is  true,  I  think, 
to  the  deepest  teaching  of  Holy  Writ  that  objective 
guilt  is  the  cause  of  moral  corruption.  As  Justifica- 
tion is  the  objective  cause  of  Sanctification,  that  is 
to  say,  it  furnishes  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  purify- 
ing of  the  nature,  so  the  condemnation  of  guilt  is 
the  objective  cause  of  inward  depravity. 

In  propounding  this  statement  I  differ,  I  know, 
from  the  Westminster  Catechism  as  well  as  from 
eminent  divines,  not  only  of  the  Arminian,  but  also  of 
the  Calvinistic  school.  Take  Dr.  Strong,  for  instance, 
whose  excellent  Body  of  Divinity  is  so  highly 
spoken  of  and    deservedly  recommended   to   young 


2  54  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

theologians.  He  assumes  that  Adam  must  have 
sinned  inwardly  before  he  transgressed  outwardly, 
that  he  had  become  internally  depraved  before  he 
had  become  externally  guilty — guilt  is  founded  on 
inward  pollution.  Analogically  he  holds  that  Re- 
generation precedes  Justification,  that  the  renewing 
work  of  the  Spirit  within  must  logically,  not  chrono- 
logically, go  before  the  justifying  act  of  the  Father 
without,  that  as  faith  is  the  fruit  of  the  new  nature, 
and  an  essential  condition  precedent  to  forgiveness* 
then  the  new  nature  in  its  embryonic  state  must 
already  exist.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge  in  his  Outlines^  though  not  of  the  elder 
Hodge.  I  have  been  brought  up  in  another  way  of 
thinking,  and  the  more  I  reflect  on  it  the  more  fully 
persuaded  I  am  of  its  validity.  A  leading  principle 
in  all  the  theological  teaching  of  the  late  Dr.  Lewis 
Edwards  of  Bala — a  man  who,  for  strength  of  intellect 
and  profoundness  of  insight,  bore  favourable  com- 
parison with  his  better  known  English  and  Scottish 
contemporaries — was,  that  the  objective  is  the  pri- 
mary reason  for  the  subjective.  In  the  domain  of 
theology  this  principle  may  be  applied  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Fall  and  the  doctrine  of  Justification. 

Let  us  take  the  latter  first,  as  it  will  reflect  light 
on  the  former.  Because  a  man  is  justified  he  is 
sanctified  ;  because  he  is  first  made  righteous  he  is 
afterwards  made  holy.  The  readjustment  of  the 
objective  relation  of  man  to  God  makes  it  possible 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  dwell  in  the  heart  to  cleanse 
it  from  all  dead  works.  But  is  not  faith  an  evidence 
of  a  new  nature?  Yes,  of  a  new  nature  following, 
not  preceding.     Justifying  faith  is  not  the  fruit  of  a 


THE   CONSEQUENCES   OF  THE   FALL  255 

renewed  nature ;  truer  is  it  to  say  that  the  renewed 
nature  is  the  fruit  of  justifying  faith.  A  man,  whilst 
yet  in  a  state  of  ungodliness,  may  attain  to  faith, 
an  unregenerate  man  can  believe,  therefore  God  by 
faith  justifies  the  ungodly.  That,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  the  only  view  which  properly  correlates  all  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  which  imparts  sincerity 
to  our  appeals  to  unbelievers  to  return,  believe,  and 
live.  Divine  co-operation  is  not  thereby  excluded, 
for  the  Spirit  works  on  men  before  He  works  iji 
them  ;  but  it  does  shut  out  the  theory  which  makes 
the  subjective  the  reason  for  the  objective,  thereby 
reversing,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  whole  Pauline 
process. 

The  same  principle  holds  good  in  our  theory 
respecting  the  Fall :  the  objective  should  be  viewed 
as  the  basis  of  the  subjective.  Adam's  guilt  was  the 
ground  of  his  subsequent  defilement — his  guilt  did 
not  arise  in  consequence  of  his  inward  impurity, 
but  his  inward  impurity  arose  in  consequence  of 
his  guilt.  But  how  could  he  have  incurred  guilt  if 
he  had  not  sinned,  and  how  could  he  have  sinned 
unless  he  were  moved  thereto  by  unholy  lusts  ?  The 
first  half  of  the  question  suggests  what  is  true,  the 
second  half  what  is  false.  Adam  could  not  incur 
guilt  without  sin  ;  but  he  could  without  sinfulness. 
Sin  preceded  sinfulness,  the  act  went  before  and  deter- 
mined the  state.  As  Dorner  well  says,  "  The  thought 
of  evil  is  not  an  evil  thought."  The  first  sin  of 
Adam  consisted  in  an  outward  act,  not  in  inward 
state  or  desire.  To  desire  of  the  fruit  of  the  Tree 
of  Knowledge  of  Good  and  Evil  was  no  sin  ;  it 
was   the  natural    instinctive  working   of  the    bodily 


256  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

appetences.  Had  he  resisted  the  desire,  he  would 
have  passed  through  his  ordeal  unscathed  ;  his 
innocence,  so  far  from  being  soiled,  would  have 
grown  whiter,  his  virtue  stronger.  The  sin  was  not 
in  the  desiring,  but  in  the  eating  ;  not  in  the  inward 
state,  but  in  the  outward  act.  Had  he  not  eaten  he 
would  not  have  fallen.  But  does  not  the  Saviour 
teach  that  lust  is  adultery?  Precisely,  for  adultery 
is  an  evil  In  itself,  a  flagrant  breach  of  the  moral 
law.  But  eating  of  the  fruit  was  not  an  evil  in 
itself,  it  was  no  violation  of  a  moral  but  of  a  positive 
commandment  ;  consequently  the  longing  for  it  was 
no  sin.  The  act  it  was  which  constituted  the  sin. 
Therefore,  sin  is  the  cause  of  sinfulness,  the  outward 
act  is  the  explanation  of  the  inward  state,  the 
objective  guilt  the  reason  for  the  subjective  depravity. 
In  accordance  with  this  is  the  maxim  which  has 
been  adopted  by  the  majority  of  theologians  since 
the  Middle  Ages  :  "  In  Adam  a  person  made  nature 
sinful;  in  his  posterity  nature  made  persons  sinful." 
Or,  as  paraphrased  by  Laidlaw  :  "  In  the  first  man's 
sin,  the  individual  ruled  the  nature  ;  ever  since  the 
nature  rules  the  individual."  ^  Man  first  fell  to  a 
condition  of  guilt,  and  thereby  contracted  sinfulness 
of  nature.  However  much  Adam  desired  the  fruit, 
so  long  as  he  resisted  he  stood  in  his  integrity ; 
had  he  finally  withstood,  his  triumph  would  have 
secured  a  happy  termination  to  his  probation.  Had 
there  been  nothing  in  the  fruit  to  excite  desire,  his 
probation  would  have  been  only  a  sham  ;  but  be- 
cause "the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  pleasant  to 
the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one 
'  Doctrine  of  Ma?i ,  p.  219. 


THE   CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE   FALL  257 

wise,"  because  it  was  pre-eminently  calculated  to 
excite  desire,  it  was  ordained  as  a  trial-test  Sinless 
man  can  sin— that  is  the  mystery  of  the  Fall.  An 
ungodly  man  can  believe — that  is  the  mystery  of 
the  Rise.  As  guilt  is  forensic  or  legal  death,  so 
defilement  is  moral  or  spiritual  death,  the  connection 
between  the  heart  and  the  Fountain  of  Life  having 
been  wholly  severed. 

Immediately  the  breath  leaves  the  body,  man  is 
as  dead  as  he  will  be  twelve  months  hence — not  as 
putrid,  but  as  dead.  The  decomposition  will  in- 
crease, the  death  not.  Or  take  another  illustration. 
The  moment  the  tree  is  severed  from  its  roots  it  is 
dead,  out-and-out  dead.  The  foliage  may  not  wither 
straight  off;  yea,  new  leaves  may  sprout  out  the 
following  spring,  fed  by  the  sap  hiding  under  the 
bark — a  phenomenon  often  witnessed  ;  but  all  the 
time  the  tree  is  wholly  dead.  The  putrefaction  is 
not  complete,  the  death  is.  Thus  with  Adam.  The 
hour  he  sinned  he  was  cut  off  from  communion  with 
his  Maker,  the  Water  of  Life  no  longer  gushed  up 
in  the  depths  of  his  spirit,  pure  and  clean.  Not  the 
connection  was  damaged,  but  wholly  severed  :  the 
death  was  complete.  His  leaves  may  not  straight- 
way drop  off,  though  at  once  they  show  a  limpidity 
and  sereness  not  seen  before ;  his  intellectual  life 
may  sprout  out  in  the  arts  and  sciences  ;  but  all  the 
same  he  is  forensically  and  spiritually  dead.  The 
corruption  may  increase,  the  death  not.  "  In  the 
day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." 

This  double  death  of  the  sinner  the  old  preachers 
of  Wales  illustrated  by  an  apt  simile — a  man  con- 
victed of  murder  and  sentenced  to  pay  the  extreme 

17 


258  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

penalty  of  the  law.  The  man  is  lying  under  sentence 
of  death.  But  before  the  day  of  execution  arrives, 
he  catches  the  jail-fever,  and  is  sick  unto  death  in 
his  cell.  The  man  is  doubly  dead,  dead  by  law  and 
dead  by  fever.  Thus  the  sinner  is  lying  under  the 
condemnation  of  the  law.  And  not  only  he  lies 
under  a  verdict  of  death,  but  the  jail-fever  holds 
him  in  its  terrible  grip,  every  year  tightening  its 
grasp.  Man  is  both  guilty  and  polluted,  condemned 
and  sick,  dead  by  law  and  dead  by  fever. 

Sin,  however,  not  only  entailed  upon  mankind  legal 
and  spiritual,  but  is  the  only  adequate  explanation 
of  physical,  death  :  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin"  (Rom.  v.  12).  Many  good 
men  go  away  from  these  words  with  the  notion  that 
St.  Paul,  and  consequently  Moses,  taught  that  till  the 
entrance  of  sin  death  was  unknown  in  the  creation. 
A  little  reflection,  however,  suffices  to  show  that  the 
subject  discussed  is  not  death  of  animals,  but  death 
of  men — "  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  menl'  not  all 
animals,  "  inasmuch  as  all  sinned."  Augustine  and 
other  patristic  writers  perceived  as  clearly  as  we  do 
that  death  reigned  from  the  beginning  in  the  irrational 
creation.  Many  of  the  animals  named  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  are  by  nature  carnivorous,  created 
to  live  by  devouring  others.  The  teaching  of  Moses, 
as  interpreted  by  St.  Paul,  is  that  the  separation  of 
body  and  spirit  in  man  is  the  consequence  of  trans- 
gression :  "  Death  is  the  wages  of  sin." 

In  an  earlier  chapter  the  opinion  was  expressed 
that  the  human  body  was  created  mortal,  in  con- 
sonance with  the  universal  reign  of  the  law  of 
mortality  in  all  materially  organised  creatures ;   but 


THE  CONSEQUENCES   OF  THE   FALL  259 

that,    had    man    maintained    his    normal    rectitude, 
mortality   would   have    been    swallowed   up   of    life. 
The  body  mortal  would  have  never  deteriorated  into 
a  body  dead  ;  the  material  and  spiritual  elements  in 
the  human  organism  would  have  never  been  sundered. 
The  law  of  mortality  in  the  body  would  have  been 
counteracted  by  the  stronger  law  of  the  spiritual  life. 
Had  man  continued  in  his  integrity,  the  body  as  well 
as  the  spirit  would  have  attained  immortality.     The 
New  Testament  speaks  of  the  sudden  change  which 
will  take  place  in  the  bodies   of  those   who  believe 
at  the  Lord's  Second  Coming ;  the  mortal  by  some 
mysterious  metamorphosis  will  put  on  immortality. 
Similarly  had  the  Fall  not  taken  place,  the  grey 
fathers  of  the  race  would  have  escaped  the  natural 
law   of  decay,   the   body  would   have   been   clothed 
upon  with   a  vesture  of  immortality,  or,  more  pro- 
bably, access  would  have  been  uninterrupted  to  the 
Tree   of  Life,   whose   ambrosial    fruit   would    renew 
the  vigour  of  the  body  and  confer  upon  it  the  power 
of  endless   life.      Through   sin,   however,   men   were 
excluded   from    participation    in    its   fruit  ;  and    that 
exclusion  is  itself  a  direct  execution  of  the  sentence, 
"Thou   shalt   surely   die."      In    consequence   of   sin, 
man  was  left  to  the  unfailing  operation  of  the  physical 
law  of  decay  ;  thus  "  by  one   man  sin   entered   the 
world,  and  death  by  sin."     By  nature  man  is  mortal ; 
only  by  sin  does  he  become  dead.     Augustine,  with 
his    usual    insight,    explaining    Rom.    viii.     10,     11, 
writes:    "'If  Christ  be   in   you,   the   body   is   dead 
because  of  sin.'     Paul  is  most  careful  to  say  '  dead,' 
not   '  mortal.'     The  body  was  mortal  by  its  nature, 
yet  that  mortal  did  not  become  dead  but  on  account 


26o  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

of  sin.  .  .  .  And  again,  '  He  that  raised  up  Christ 
from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies.' 
Paul  says  not  '  your  dead  bodies,'  as  before  he  had 
said  '  the  body  is  dead,'  but  '  shall  quicken,'  says 
he,  'even  your  mortal  bodies,'  and  that  in  such  a 
way  that  not  only  shall  they  not  be  dead,  but  also 
no  longer  mortal."  "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust 
shalt  thou  return,"  gives  expression  to  a  universal 
law  of  nature.  Had  Adam  persevered  in  his 
obedience,  the  dust  would  have  been  spiritualised 
and  immortalised  ;  but  because  of  his  transgression 
this  law  of  nature  proved  stronger  than  he,  it  asserted 
its  supremacy  by  the  dissolution  of  the  physical 
organism. 

n.  The   Fall   of   Adam,   however,   concerned   not 
himself  alone,  but  furthermore  his  posterity. 

Moses  presents  this  truth  in  the  form  of  history. 
Adam  is  alleged  to  have  begotten  a  son  in  his  own 
image,  not  in  the  image  of  God  ;  and  the  history  of 
his  descendants  leaves  the  impression  on  the  mind 
that  they  are  all  gone  astray.  "  All  flesh  corrupted 
its  way  on  the  earth."  Meditating  on  these  facts, 
St.  Paul  deduced  from  them  the  famous  doctrine  of 
"original  sin."  It  is  beside  my  purpose,  and  be- 
longing more  properly  to  the  province  of  dogmatic 
theology,  to  discuss  this  doctrine  at  length,  though 
perhaps  no  doctrine  more  imperatively  demands  a 
restatement  in  the  present  day.  Yet  it  were  expe- 
dient to  examine  one  or  two  points  in  the  Mosaic 
narrative  in  the  light  of  its  interpretation  by  St. 
Paul.  People  object  to  bring  the  Apostle  to  expound 
Moses.  But  why?  They  do  not  object  to  long 
citations   from   German   rationalists,   but   if    Paul   is 


THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  261 

quoted  they  at  once  sound  the  bugle  of  rebellion. 
But  Paul,  in  my  humble  estimation,  throws  more 
light  on  Moses  than  any  other  writer,  ancient  or 
modern  ;  no  one  has  a  firmer  hold  of  the  spiritual 
kernel  of  the  Mosaic  theology. 

In  the  first  place,  Paul  fixes  the  responsibility  of 
the  introduction  of  sin  on  "  one  man,"  Adam.  This 
is  the  way  wherein  he  accounts  for  the  universal 
prevalence  of  evil.  As  sin  is  universal,  the  first 
offence  must  have  been  committed  by  the  first  man, 
when  all  humanity  was  gathered  together  in  one 
personality.  In  the  second  place,  St.  Paul  traces  the 
stream  of  human  evil  to  its  fountain  head  in  the  "  one 
offence "  of  the  "  one  man."  The  "  one  offence,"  of 
course,  was  the  partaking  of  the  forbidden  fruit. 
The  subsequent  offences  of  Adam  are  not  referred 
to  at  all,  either  by  Moses  in  the  narrative  or  by 
St.  Paul  in  his  commentary  thereon.  Evidently,  then, 
the  other  offences  were  private,  concerning  no  one 
but  the  individual  Adam — they  do  not  concern  us 
at  all,  nor  had  they  any  influence  in  determining  the 
course  of  history.  But  the  "one  offence"  concerns 
us  as  much  as  him  ;  it  brought  sin  upon  us,  and 
death,  and  all  our  woe.  It  is  the  one  hinge  on  which 
the  destiny  of  the  race  hung.  Without  contradiction 
that  "  one  offence  "  of  that  "  one  man  "  bears  a  closer 
relation  to  posterity  than  the  other  sins  of  Adam. 
What  was  that  relation? 

The  usual  modern  answer  is,  that  Adam's  relation 
to  us  was  that  of  solidarity,  a  term  invented  by  the 
erratic  but  profound  genius  of  the  founder  of  the 
Positive  Philosophy.  This  truth  the  older  theologians 
expressed  by  saying  that  Adam  was  the  natural  head 


262  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

of  the  race,  or,  in  other  words,  the  one  common 
"  root  of  bitterness  "  from  which  all  mankind  sprang. 
Theological  thought  has  been  long  accustomed  to 
view  humanity  as  a  tree,  and  of  necessity  the  worm- 
wood in  the  root  imparts  its  bitter  taste  to  the 
sap  in  all  the  branches.  The  corruption  of  our  first 
parents  infects  their  whole  progeny.  Modern  science 
has,  no  doubt,  brought  into  greater  prominence  the 
organic  unity  of  the  race  ;  but  it  has  by  no  means 
created  the  idea,  for  this  pervades  the  whole  of 
Sacred  Writ.  Recent  speculations,  however,  have 
taught  the  nineteenth  century  to  throw  more 
emphasis  upon  it.  The  solidarity  of  the  race  is 
now  a  truth  of  philosophy  as  well  as  of  theology. 
Mankind  are  viewed  as  one  immense  living  organism; 
the  whole  is  responsible  for  the  welfare  of  each  part, 
and  no  damage  can  be  inflicted  on  the  part  but  it 
forthwith  enfeebles  the  whole.  But  the  first  man 
sustained  a  more  vital  relation  to  the  organism  than 
any  subsequent  individual,  for  he  was  the  primary 
cell,  from  whose  loins  all  others  came,  and  defilement 
in  him  meant  depravity  in  them.  A  bitter  fountain 
emits  an  unwholesome  stream.  If  you  plant  diseased 
seed  in  the  ground,  you  cannot  expect  to  gather  a 
strong,  healthy  crop. 

All  this  is  true  of  Adam  in  the  totality  of  his 
life.  It  is  the  uniform  working  of  natural  law,  and 
as  applicable  to  his  second,  third,  and  fourth  sin 
as  to  the  first,  though  one  cannot  but  think  that 
in  its  application  to  common  life  by  extremists, 
wedded  to  a  favourite  theory,  its  influence  is  some- 
what exaggerated.  The  theory  of  heredity  occupies 
a    large   place   in    much   of    the   theology   and    the 


THE  CONSEQUENCES  OE  THE  FALL  263 

philosophy  of  the  century.  The  river  of  innate 
turpitude  is  described  as  increasing  in  volume  and 
momentum  from  generation  to  generation,  till  the 
impression  is  unmistakably  left  on  the  mind  that 
"  original "  or  hereditary  sin,  instead  of  gradually 
disappearing,  is  growing  darker,  more  turbid,  and 
more  invincible  with  the  roll  of  the  millenniums. 
But  is  this  teaching  true?  Is  original  sin  one  tinge 
darker  in  the  babe  born  to-day,  the  child  of  three 
generations  of  thieves  and  drunkards,  than  it  was 
in  the  first  babe  which  graced  our  planet  ?  Have 
we  not  heard  from  our  own  pulpits  sermons  preached 
with  intense  passion  and  overpowering  influence  on 
the  gradual  increase  of  sin  in  the  race — the  drunken- 
ness of  the  grandparent  intensifying  itself  in  the 
father,  this  again  descending  with  added  momentum 
to  the  child,  till  drunkenness  appears  unavoidable, 
a  physical  necessity,  in  this  particular  family  ?  But 
is  not  all  this  an  exaggeration  of  the  truth  ?  That 
the  principle  of  heredity  is  a  power  within  certain 
limits  is  undeniable  ;  modification  of  the  fibres  and 
tissues  of  the  body  is  possible ;  acquired  habits 
become  transmitted  instincts,  with  always  a  strong 
tendency,  however,  to  revert  to  the  original  type. 
But  man,  besides  being  a  physical,  is  also  a  spiritual 
being  ;  and  if  Traducianism,  to  the  exclusion  of 
Creationism,  were  the  whole  truth,  this  theory  might 
suffice  to  account  for  the  deplorable  phenomena 
of  human  Hfe.  "  But  the  individual  is  not  a  mere 
manifestation  of  the  race.  God  applies  to  the 
origination  of  every  single  man  a  special  creative 
thought  and  act  of  will."  The  theory  of  heredity, 
true    within     certain     limits,    is     not     adequate    to 


264  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

explain    all    the    improvement   or    deterioration    in 
families. 

Even  in  the  animal  world  its  inadequacy  is  felt. 
The  most  perfect  specimen  of  the  horse  witnessed 
in  this  country  was  a  cob-mare,  the  property  of  an 
acquaintance  of  my  own.  She  was  pronounced  by 
the  Times  newspaper  the  most  perfect  specimen 
of  horseflesh  in  the  kingdom.  In  the  days  of  her 
youth  she  carried  away  all  prizes  in  the  most  im- 
portant agricultural  shows.  Her  advent  was  adver- 
tised on  big  placards  on  the  walls  of  the  towns  she 
visited  as  the  greatest  attraction  of  the  show.  Yet 
she  was  a  mare  without  a  pedigree,  a  chance  colt 
cast  on  the  mountains  of  Pembrokeshire.  Neither 
is  the  principle  of  heredity  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  appearance  of  men  of  genius.  Genius  does  not 
beget  genius.  Men  of  genius  come  from  the  most 
unexpected  quarters,  and  vanish  as  suddenly  as 
they  appear.  Genius  is  a  spark  dropped  into  the 
human  mind  from  outside  the  planet.  It  kindles, 
it  flames,  it  dies.  Take  Shakespeare,  the  greatest 
poet  of  England.  Were  his  parents  more  richly 
endowed  intellectually  than  their  neighbours  ?  Did 
his  children  inherit  his  gifts  ?  Or  take  Williams 
of  Pantycelyn,  the  great  Welsh  hymnologist.  It  is 
not  known  that  his  father  and  mother  inherited  a 
larger  share  of  the  Divine  afflatus  than  the  other 
farmers  of  Carmarthenshire ;  and  it  is  a  well- 
established  fact  that  none  of  his  descendants  in- 
herited the  celestial  flame.  In  every  individual  a 
spiritual  element  enters,  powerfully  modifying  the 
operation  of  the  hereditary  principle.  Drunkenness 
in  Wales  is  not  hereditary.     Out  of  drunken  families 


THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  265 

have  come  many  of  our  most  respected  citizens,  and 
out  of  godly  families  some  of  the  most  infamous 
prodigals. 

The  transmission  of  evil,  simply  according  to  a 
law  of  nature,  does  not  suffice  to  account  for  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  original  sin.  If  the  law  of 
nature,  Like  begets  like,  were  the  only  factor  in 
the  problem,  Eve  should  have  at  least  equal 
prominence  with  Adam.  Eve  was  first  in  the 
transgression  ;  her  nature  contracted  evil  probably 
before  her  husband's,  and  yet  in  the  Scriptural 
presentation  of  the  doctrine  Eve  has  no  status. 
Not  by  one  woman,  but  by  one  man,  sin  entered 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin.  Eve  was  a  conjoint 
root  of  the  race  ;  the  pollution  of  her  nature  passed 
into  her  offspring  quite  as  much  as  that  of  her 
husband's ;  yet  the  responsibility  of  the  moral 
abnormity  is  fixed  not  on  Eve,  but  on  Adam — a 
strong  evidence  that  he  sustained  a  relation  to 
posterity  different  from  that  sustained  by  Eve. 
What  was  this  difference  ?  In  so  far  as  the  principle 
of  heredity  or  natural  headship  is  concerned,  both 
are  on  a  par. 

It  would,  therefore,  appear  that  a  fuller  and  more 
adequate  answer  than  that  of  natural  headship 
must  be  sought.  Paul  lays  the  stress  of  the 
argument,  not  on  the  first  man's  corrupt  nature, 
but  on  his  "one  offence."  That  one  it  was  which 
affected  the  future  destiny  of  his  race ;  the  objective 
is  here  again  the  ground  of  the  subjective.  Why, 
then,  that  "one  offence"  more  than  his  other 
transgressions?  Here  the  so-called  federal  theology 
steps     in     and     answers — Because    Adam    was    the 


266  1>R1MEVAL  REVELATION 

natural  head,  God  constituted  him  also  the  Covenant 
representative  of  the  race  ;  by  that  "  one  offence " 
he  broke  the  covenant,  and  once  broken  it  no  longer 
existed.  Hence  the  importance  attached  to  the 
"  one  offence "  ;  it  was  not  merely  a  private  but  a 
public  sin — the  one  sin  which  was  public,  and 
therefore  the  one  sin  by  which  the  future  destiny 
of  mankind  was  settled.  That  the  word  "  covenant  " 
is  not  used  in  this  connection  forms  no  objection, 
though  many  incline  to  the  opinion  that  to  it 
Hosea  refers,  vi.  7 :  "  They  like  Adam  have  trans- 
gressed the  covenant."  The  term  "  solidarity "  is 
not  yet  a  hundred  years  old,  and  yet  figures  largely 
in  the  writings  of  those  who  demur  to  the  term 
"  covenant,"  which  to  say  the  least  goes  back  some 
centuries.  The  question,  however,  is,  Was  the 
relation  subsisting  between  the  first  man  and  God 
of  the  nature  of  a  covenant,  or  was  it  an  individual 
transaction  wholly  based  on  natural  justice? 

Let  us  examine  the  relation.  The  commandment 
interdicting  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  to  man  was, 
we  hold,  more  than  a  commandment  ;  it  was  a 
commandment  in  the  form  of  a  covenant.  Dr. 
Buchanan  writes :  "In  the  words  of  Bishop 
Hopkins,  '  If  God  had  only  said.  Do  this,  without 
adding.  Thou  shalt  live,  this  had  not  been  a  covenant, 
but  a  law ;  and  if  He  had  only  said,  Thou  shalt 
live,  without  saying.  Do  this,  it  had  not  been  a 
covenant,  but  a  promise.  Remove  the  condition, 
and  you  make  it  a  simple  promise ;  remove  the 
promise,  and  you  make  it  an  absolute  law :  but, 
both  these  being  found  in  it,  it  is  both  a  law  and  a 
covenant.' "       Personally  I    attach   no  importance  to 


THE  CONSEQUENCES   OF  THE  FALL  267 

this  mechanical  reasoning  of  good  Bishop  Hopkins, 
and    I    have   introduced    it    as    leading    to   a    more 
satisfactory    statement    by    Dr.    Buchanan    himself: 
"  In    this  form   the  law  continued  to  be  binding  on 
man    by  its    precept,  but  God  condescended  also  to 
bind    Himself  by  His   promise,  and  became,  in  the 
expressive   words   of   Boston,   'debtor    to    His   own 
faithfulness'  to  make   that   promise   good.      A  new 
element  was   thus   introduced  into  man's  relation  to 
God  :  he  was  still  a  creature  dependent  on  the  power, 
and  subject  to  the  law,  of  his  Creator ;  but  he  was 
now  advanced  to  be  a  'confederate'  with  Him,  and, 
as  long  as  he  continued  to  obey,  could  look  to  Him 
as  his  covenant  God. 

"  But  there  is  a  wider  difference  still  between  the 
Moral  Law,  considered  simply  as  the  law  of  man's 
nature,  and  the  law  in  its  positive  form,  as  a  Divme 
covenant   of   life.      The    law,    as    it    was    originally 
inscribed  on  the  moral  nature  of  man,  was  a  PER- 
SONAL  rule  of  duty,— it  laid  an  obligation  on  each 
individual  singly,-and  held  him  responsible  only  for 
himself;  but  the  law,  as  it  was  subsequently  promul- 
gated  in   the   form  of    a    Divine    covenant,   was    a 
Generic  constitution,  imposed  by  supreme  authority 
on  the  first  father  of  the  human  race,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  his  posterity,-and  extending  far  beyond 
his  individual  interests,  so  as  to  affect  the  character 
and  condition  even  of  his  remotest  descendant.     He 
was  constituted,  by  Divine  appointment,  the  trustee 
for   the  whole   race  which  should  spring  from  him  ; 
and  was  placed  in  the  deeply  responsible  position  of 
their  covenant   head   and  legal  representative.      He 
was  a  party  to  the  covenant,  not  simply  as  a  private 


268  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

individual,  acting  for  iiimsclf  alone,  but  a  public 
person,  invested  with  an  official  character,  and 
acting  also  for  others.  He  could  not  have  assumed 
this  office,  or  acted  in  this  capacity,  of  his  own  will ; 
he  must  have  been  constituted  the  legal  repre- 
sentative of  his  posterity  by  the  same  Supreme 
Will  which  enacted  the  law  under  which  he  was 
placed."  ^ 

The  form  in  which  Dr.  Buchanan  presents  the 
subject  may  appear  slightly  old-fashioned,  but  that 
does  not  detract  from  its  substantial  truth.  Had 
Adam  loyally  observed  the  commandment,  Hfe 
eternal  would  have  been  the  reward  of  himself  and 
his  descendants  alike ;  but  as  he  disobeyed,  he 
incurred  the  penalty  of  death  for  himself  and  his 
posterity.  *'  Death  is  the  wages  of  sin  " — the  wages. 
Between  the  transgression  and  the  penalty  there  is 
a  relation  of  strict  justice.  The  punishment  is  an 
equivalent  of  the  trespass.  Immortal  life,  however, 
is  not  the  wages  of  obedience,  but  rather  its  reward. 
The  richness  of  the  life  to  come  would  be  unspeak- 
ably greater  than  the  wages  of  obedience ;  between 
them  there  could  be  established  no  relation  of 
equation.  The  reward  would  infinitely  transcend 
wages,  would  be  infinitely  richer,  grander  than  the 
just  deserts  of  obedience.  Adam,  therefore,  did  not 
stand  on  the  basis  of  mere  natural  right ;  he  was 
placed  by  God  in  an  arrangement,  or  constitution,  or 
compact,  or  covenant — call  it  what  you  will — different 
from,  and  transcendent  to,  the  mere  constitution  of 
nature. 

It  is  objected  that  mankind  were  not  a  consenting 
'  The  Cunningham  Lecture  on  Justification,  pp.  2']2,  273. 


THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF   THE  FALL  269 

party.      But   was   our   previous    consent   necessary? 
Man's  consent  was  not  obtained  prior  to  his  creation  ; 
yet  his  creation  took  place.     No  one  objects,  for  the 
act  of  creation  was  to  the  advantage  of  man  ;  to  be 
was    better    than    not   to   be.      Correspondingly   our 
consent  was  not  necessary  to   the  establishment  of 
a  Divine  covenant  with  the  race.     Were  the  covenant 
in  any  way  to  our  disadvantage,  our   preceding  ac- 
quiescence might  have   been  deemed  needful,  which 
means  that  no  covenant  at  all   could  be  established 
between  God  and  His  rational  subjects.     But  seeing 
that  the  covenant  was  in  every  detail  arranged,  not 
to  our  loss,  but  to  our   immense   gain,   securing  us 
benefits  to  which,  on   the   mere  basis  of  nature,  we 
had    no   title,    our   concurrence  was   rightly  deemed 
superfluous.      The    covenant    did    not    imperil,    but 
improved,  our   position.      If  Adam    fell,  he  and   we 
would  have  been  treated  on   the  principles  of  strict 
equity ;  not  one  stripe  would  have  been  added  to  our 
punishment  beyond  the  requirements  of  strict  justice. 
In    regard   of  punishment   men   would   be   as  if  no 
covenant  existed,  treated  exactly  on  the  ground  of 
natural   justice.      On    the    other   hand,   had    Adam 
maintained   his   uprightness,  the  blessings  conferred 
would  have  been  on  a  scale  infinitely  larger  than  the 
simple  merit  of  his  obedience.     When,  therefore,  it 
is  maintained  that  Adam  was  the  covenant  head  of 
his  race,  we  teach  that  God  placed  the  human  race 
in  a  better  position  than  if  left  simply  to  the  con- 
stitution of  nature.     The  covenant   was  not  to  our 
prejudice,  but  to  our  interest,  and  therefore  worthy 
of  the   Divine   Benevolence,  which  always  overflows 
the    boundaries    of    bare    justice.      And    as    by    a 


270  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

covenant  we  went  down,  so  also,  says  St.  Paul,  by 
a  covenant  we  come  up. 

III.  Having  essayed  to  establish  that  Adam  was 
our  head,  not  simply  according  to  the  arrangement 
of  natural  law,  but  also  according  to  the  higher 
constitution  of  a  covenant  law,  let  us  advert  to  the 
consequences  which  necessarily  overtook  the  race  in 
consequence  of  the  treason  of  their  representative. 
These  consequences  are  generally  summed  up  under 
the  one  general  term  "original  sin."  Disregard,  if 
you  like,  the  Mosaic  and  the  Pauline  explanation 
of  its  origin,  you  cannot  deny  the  reality  of  its 
existence. 

All  sin,  be  it  original  or  acquired,  is  composed  of 
two  elements :  first,  guilt  or  forensic  death ;  second, 
depravity  or  moral  death. 

Original  sin  impHes  original  guilt.  Men  before 
they  reach  the  age  of  responsibility  are  labouring 
under  the  burden  of  guilt.  We  are  born  in  sin,  and 
therefore  in  guilt,  for  there  is  no  sin  without  guilt 
as  its  first  necessary  constituent.  The  idea  of  sin 
without  guilt  contains  a  contradiction.  But  mani- 
festly it  is  not  personal  guilt.  This  opens  up  to  us 
the  terrible  vista  of  generic  or  race  guilt.  Adam 
drew  on  himself  personal  guilt,  for  his  conscience 
charged  him  directly  with  a  gross  dereliction  of 
duty ;  but  what  was  to  him  personal  sin  became 
to  his  posterity  generic  sin.  Think  not  this  an  idle 
abstraction.  We  belong  to  our  race  even  more  than 
to  ourselves  ;  and  the  better  and  greater  we  grow, 
the  more  real  will  this  generic  sin  appear  to  us. 
Those  who  are  irretrievably  sunk  in  selfish  indi- 
vidualism may  object  to  the  imputation  to  us  of  the 


THE   CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  27 1 

guilt  of  the  Fall ;  but  those  of  expanded  sympathies 
and  noble  aspirations  do  not  complain,  they  only 
lament ;  and  their  noblest  effusions,  forgettini^  self- 
interest,  contain  expressions  of  generic  contrition  for 
the  generic  sin. 

The  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin   to 
us  is  not  a  doctrine  of  revelation   merely,  the  con- 
coction   of    narrow    minds    ill    trained    in    political 
economy,   but   lies   foursquare   on    the    economy   of 
nature.     Deny  the    Bible,  what  better  will  you  be  ? 
You   cannot   deny  nature.     Men,  unlike  the  angels, 
were    not    all    created     independently     and     simul- 
taneously ;  we  were  created  one  organism,  proceeding 
the  one  from  the  other  by  natural  generation  ;  and 
here  the  fact  of  natural  generation  forms  the  basis 
to  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  which  does  not  mean 
a  theological  fabrication  of  logical  cobwebs,  but  the 
honest   recognition   of    the    deepest    natural    verity. 
The    noblest    spirits    of    the    race   are   the   first   to 
acknowledge,  and  the  loudest  to  proclaim,  that  we 
lie  under  a  doom  outside  the  circle  of  our  individual 
life.     The  "  one  offence "  of  Adam  cast  its  shadow 
upon  all  subsequent   history,  made   sick   the   whole 
body  of  humanity. 

Yet  it  is  expedient  to  add  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  a  single  soul  has  ever  perished  on 
account  of  Adam's  transgression.  The  first  offence 
entailed  the  condemnation  of  all,  the  damnation  of 
none.  Eternal  punishment  will  only  overtake  those 
who  of  their  own  free  will  prefer  darkness  to  light, 
take  the  side  of  Adam  against  God,  and  thereby 
voluntarily  give  in  their  concurrence  to  the  stipu- 
lations   of    the    covenant.     In    the   Divine   Way   of 


272  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Salvation  ample  provision  has  been  made  for  the 
recovery  of  believers,  and  of  children  who  die  under 
the  age  of  responsibility.  Only  those  who  sin  wil- 
fully will  be  consigned  to  perdition. 

By  "  total  depravity "  is  not  signified  that  man's 
nature  has  become  out-and-out  wicked,  that  his 
ungodliness  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  aggravated, 
that  his  inward  pollution  has  reached  the  farthest 
verge  of  possibility.  In  logical  phrase  it  denotes, 
not  the  "  intension,"  but  the  "  extension,"  of  sin,  that 
every  faculty  of  the  mind  is  tainted,  every  power 
corrupted — not  to  the  greatest  extent  possible,  but 
to  such  an  extent  that  the  whole  bias  of  the  mind 
is  away  from  God  and  towards  evil.  Whereas  prior 
to  the  Fall  the  inclination  of  human  nature  was 
steadily  towards  God,  thereafter  that  inclination 
became  reversed,  and  pointed  directly  away  from 
God  and  towards  evil.  No  faculty  has  escaped  the 
taint,  hence  the  term  "  total  depravity "  ;  but  no 
faculty  has  fallen  into  a  state  of  unmitigated,  irre- 
mediable corruption.  Though  the  soul  is  at  enmity 
with  God,  yet  it  is  capable  of  much  that  is  noble 
in  social  and  artistic  life,  and  even  of  responding 
to  Divine  appeals  as  the  echo  answers  the  voice. 
Though  no  direct  communication  takes  place  be- 
tween God  and  the  sinner,  the  power  for  communi- 
cation, though  injured,  has  not  been  lost — the  power 
of  echo,  the  answering  voice,  still  remains.  Man  is 
a  sinner,  but  not  yet  a  demon. 

Every  man,  therefore,  starts  life  with  a  burden  of 
inborn  sin  ;  he  runs  the  race  set  before  him  "  weak 
in  the  ankle-joints  from  his  mother's  womb."  His 
innate  bias  is  away  from    God    and  goodness  ;   and 


THE  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  FALL  273 

though  to  please  his  own  pride  he  may  raise  objec- 
tions, yet  really  in  the  bottom  of  his  heart  he  does 
not  object,  but  rather  delights  in  the  evil  propensity 
of  his  nature,  and  by  his  delight  gives  his  approval 
to  the  whole  scheme  or  constitution,  in  virtue  of 
which  he  became  what  he  is. 

But  lest  any  one's  ultimate  salvation  be  jeopardised 
by  the  innate  depravity  of  the  soul,  God  in  His 
infinite  grace  has  provided  counteracting  influences 
in  His  revealed  Word  and  the  "strivings"  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Whatever  be  the  innate  power  of 
original  sin  driving  us  to  red  ruin  and  disaster,  it 
is  fairly  and  squarely  encountered  by  the  resisting 
power  of  the  Word  and  the  Spirit.  If  the  former 
prove  victorious,  it  will  be  because  it  has  been 
strongly  recruited  by  the  power  of  the  sinner's  own 
free  will.  Thus  God  in  His  infinite  consideration 
has  provided  for  original  sin  a  sufficient  counterpoise 
in  the  illumination  of  His  Word  and  the  strivings 
of  His  Spirit. 


18 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE   PROTEVANGEL  :    DAWN   OF   HOPE 

SOON  after  their  transgression  God  drew  near  to 
the  guilty  pair :  "  They  heard  the  Voice  of 
the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool 
of  the  day."  The  question  here  distinctly  arises, 
Were  our  first  parents  favoured  with  theophanies 
before  the  Fall?  Two  answers  have  been  returned. 
Delitzsch  replies,  No :  "  God  now  for  the  first  time 
holds  converse  with  men  in  an  outward  manner, 
corresponding  to  their  materialisation  and  alienated 
state."  Keil,  on  the  contrary,  answers.  Yes  :  "  God 
held  conversation  with  the  first  pair  in  a  visible  form, 
as  a  father  and  educator  of  His  children,  and  this 
was  the  original  mode  of  the  Divine  revelation,  not 
coming  in  for  the  first  time  after  the  Fall." 

This  latter  view  best  commends  itself  to  my 
judgment,  not  only  on  the  general  principle  that 
we  have  no  right  to  believe  that  God  would  do  more, 
and  reveal  Himself  more  intimately,  to  His  rebellious 
than  to  His  obedient  children,  but  also  on  the  ground 
that  men,  in  their  state  of  virtual  infancy,  required 
direct  enlightenment  and  visible  assistance.  With 
mankind  in  their  adult,  mature  state  communion  of 
spirit  with  spirit  may  suffice  ;    but  in  their  infantile 

274 


THE  PROTEVANGEL  :  DAWN   OF   HOPE  275 

inexperience  and  ignorance,  more  reasonable  and 
appropriate  was  it  that  God  should  appear  to  them 
face  to  face,  and  give  them  through  the  medium  of 
the  physical  senses  the  necessary  instruction.  At 
all  events,  though  not  directly  authenticated,  the 
belief  that  God  should  at  stated  intervals  appear  to 
the  sinless  progenitors  of  the  race  in  the  guise,  though 
not  in  the  reality,  of  man,  to  hold  communion  with 
them,  thereby  helping  them  on  in  knowledge  and 
virtue,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Genesis  narrative, 
but  is  rather  presupposed. 

At  the  usual  time  of  the  appearing  of  the  Divine 
Visitant,  "  in  the  cool,"  or  according  to  the  marginal 
reading,  "  in  the  wind  of  the  day,"  when  by  a  well- 
known  natural  law  the  breezes,  towards  sundown 
gently  blow,  carrying  refreshment  and  renovation  to 
the  languid  body  consequent  on  the  heat  and  labour 
of  the  day,  "  they  heard  the  Voice  of  the  Lord  God 
walking  in  the  garden."  Farther  on  we  read  of  the 
Word  of  the  Lord  approaching  men,  by  which  is 
generally  understood  the  Second  Person  in  the 
Godhead  drawing  near  in  the  way  of  benediction 
and  grace.  Here,  however,  it  is  not  the  Word,  but 
the  Voice.  In  other  Scriptures  the  Voice  of  God 
frequently  indicates  a  thunderstorm.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  twenty-ninth  Psalm :  "  The  Voice  of 
the  Lord  is  upon  the  waters ;  the  God  of  glory 
thundereth.  The  Voice  of  the  Lord  is  powerful ;  the 
Voice  of  the  Lord  is  full  of  majesty.  The  Voice  of 
the  Lord  shaketh  the  wilderness  [i.e.  the  roll  of  the 
thunder  overhead  makes  the  ground  throb  underneath]. 
The  Voice  of  the  Lord  maketh  the  hinds  to  calve"— 
that  is,  the  flash  of  the  lightning  and  the  crash  of  the 


2^6  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

thunder  affright  the  hinds,  which  in  their  sudden 
alarm  cast  their  young  before  the  time.  That  is  a 
possible  meaning  in  this  passage  also.  That  day  rose 
cloudless  and  serene  in  Eden.  In  the  process  of  the 
day  Adam  and  Eve  sinned  ;  in  the  evening,  towards 
sundown,  the  black  clouds  gathered,  the  artillery  of 
heaven  boomed — the  thunders  roared,  the  lightnings 
flashed.  Our  first  parents  had  never  heard  thunders 
before  nor  seen  lightnings  ;  and,  conscious  of  guilt, 
they  hid  themselves  among  the  trees  of  the  Garden — 
a  faithful  picture  of  great  sinners  in  a  thunderstorm 
in  every  age  and  clime.  What  was  the  thunderpeal  ? 
Only  a  blast  of  the  trumpet,  announcing  the  coming 
of  the  Judge.  Immediately  the  assizes  open,  and  the 
culprits  stand  their  trial. 

Probably,  however,  this  view  is  too  theatric. 
Preference  should  therefore  be  given  to  the  quieter 
and  more  sober  view,  which  represents  God  ap- 
proaching the  first  man  in  the  "  human  form  Divine," 
walking  in  the  Garden,  at  the  sound  of  whose  foot- 
fall they  feared  and  fled.  Doubtless  they  expected 
the  usual  arrival  of  their  Divine  Counsellor.  Their 
hearts  wildly  beating,  and  catching  a  sound  as  of 
a  "  going  in  the  top  of  the  mulberry  trees,"  they 
cast  wistful  glances,  each  adding  to  the  terror  of 
the  other,  and,  when  at  last  the  familiar  voice  was 
heard,  away  they  fled  like  guilty  hounds  from  Him, 
who  had  always  come  to  them  with  fulness  of 
blessing.     "  Conscience  does  make  cowards  of  us  all." 

Suspicion  always  haunts  the  guilty  mind  ; 
The  thief  doth  fear  each  bush  an  officer.^ 


^  Shakespeare,  Henry  VI. 


THE   PROTEVANGEL:   DAWN   OF   HOPE  277 

The  Hebrew  for  trees  may  be  singular  or  plural. 
Some  adopt  the  singular,  according  to  which  Adam 
and  Eve  are  pourtrayed  as  hiding  themselves  between 
the  branches  of  the  Tree  of  Life,  in  the  hope  of 
recovering  there  what  they  had  lost  through  eating 
of  the  Tree  of  Knowledge.  Either  way  it  amounts 
to  the  same  thing — men  are  alienated  from  God  and 
dread  His  presence.  But  though  they  will  not  seek 
Him,  He  will  seek  them.  "  And  the  Lord  God 
called  unto  Adam,  and  said  unto  him.  Where  art 
thou  ? "  This  does  not  signify  that  the  man  had 
wandered  beyond  the  circle  of  the  Divine  know- 
ledge, only  beyond  the  range  of  the  Divine  com- 
munion. Having  been  summoned  to  the  Divine 
Presence,  and  made  their  lame  confession,  judgment 
is  pronounced  upon  the  culprits  in  the  order  of 
their  transgression— the  serpent,  the  woman,  the 
man. 

First  of  all,  God  judges  the  serpent :  "  And  the 
Lord  God  said  unto  the  serpent,  Because  thou  hast 
done  this,  thou  art  cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above 
every  beast  of  the  field ;  upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou 
go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy 
life."  That  the  serpent  in  its  original  form  belonged 
to  the  genus  of  cattle  and  beasts,  and  was  not  a 
crawling  reptile,  was  an  opinion  held  by  the  older 
commentators,  and  even  by  many  moderns.  Others 
with  greater  propriety  see  no  change  of  structure 
in  the  serpent,  only  that  her  natural  state  is  aggra- 
vated. Whereas  before  she  meandered  along  grace- 
fully in  the  open,  she  now  hides  like  a  guilty  thing 
in  dark  corners,  a  terror  to  everybody  and  by  every- 
body abhorred.     "  Going  upon   the  belly  "  is  not   a 


2/8  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

penal  degradation  from  an  erect  posture,  but  the 
gait  natural  to  its  organism. 

"It  is,"  says  Professor  Owen,  "  a  palaeontological 
fact,  that  the  ophidian  peculiarities  and  complexities 
of  organisation,  in  designed  subserviency  to  a  prone 
posture  and  a  gliding  progress  on  the  belly,  were 
given,  together  with  the  poison  apparatus,  by  the 
Creator,  when,  in  the  progressive  preparation  of  the 
dry  land,  but  few,  and  those  only  of  the  lower 
organised  species,  now  our  contemporaries,  had  been 
called  into  existence — before  any  of  the  actual  kinds 
of  mammalia  trod  the  earth,  and  long  ages  before 
the  creation  of  man." 

This  quotation  is  made,  not  with  the  simple  pur- 
pose of  showing  that  the  serpent  of  geologic  and 
the  serpent  of  historic  periods  are  in  natural  con- 
figuration identical,  but  for  the  further  and  more 
important  purpose  of  proving  that  the  diction  wherein 
the  curse  is  couched  is  too  ample,  the  language  too 
large,  for  the  natural  serpent ;  that,  overlapping  into 
the  spiritual  world,  it  finds  its  fitting  object,  not  in 
the  gliding,  sinuous  form  hiding  in  the  deep  morass, 
but  in  the  Spirit  of  Evil  which  found  in  it  his  fittest 
embodiment,  whether  in  fact  or  figure.  Upon  him 
as  the  first  instigator  of  evil  the  curse  primarily  fell, 
without  present  mitigation  or  hope  of  future  ameliora- 
tion in  his  condition  :  "  Dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the 
days  of  thy  life." 

That  the  sin  of  the  devil  is  beyond  remedy,  his 
fall  beyond  recovery,  seems  to  be  the  consistent 
teaching  of  Holy  Writ.  This  appears  from  two 
considerations.  First,  the  sin  of  the  tempter  is  self- 
originated,  and  to  self-originated  sin  it  would  seem 


THE  PROTEVANGEL;  DAWN   OF  HOPE  279 

there  is  no  redemption.  With  man  sin  is  not  self- 
originated  ;  this  bitter  herb  is  the  produce  of  a  rotten 
seed  dropped  into  his  heart  from  another  world.  It 
is  an  exotic,  an  element  foreign  to  his  nature,  and 
therefore  separation  between  him  and  it  is  possible. 
The  angels 

by  their  own  suggestion  fell, 
Self-tempted,  self- depraved:  man  falls,  deceived 
By  the  other  first ;  man  therefore  shall  find  grace, 
The  other  none.     In  mercy  and  justice  both. 
Through  heaven  and  earth,  so  shall  my  glory  excel : 
But  mercy  first  and  last  shall  brightest  shine.^ 

Though  a  sinner,  man  is  capable  of  salvation.     But 
to  the  devil  evil  is  indigenous ;  it  grew  up  without 
any  outward  incitement,  and  consequently  seems  to 
be   inextricably   intertwined   with   the   fibres   of  his 
being       Second,   whereas    the   sin   of    man,   though 
fraught  with  important  consequences,  began  at  the 
bottom  of  the  scale,  at  the  farthest  remove  possible 
from  direct  antagonism  to  God,  the  sin  of  the  devil 
started  at  the  summit,  in   flat   contradiction   to  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Almighty.     His  first  sin  was  his 
greatest.     Anything  more  heinous  than  the  deposition 
of  the  Godhead  and  the  usurpation  by  himself  of  the 
throne  he  can  never  again  attempt.     The  essence  of 
his  sin    is   selfishness,  a  direct   insolent   attempt   to 
make   self   supreme.     Therefore   he   is   incapable   of 
self-denial  in  any  form-he  sacrifices  all  to  himself, 
himself  to  nothing.     Selfishness,  however,  is  not  the 
essence  of  human  sin.     True,  men  "  serve  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator,"  but  that  creature  need   not 
always  be  self;  indeed,  oftener  than  not,  it  is  some 
1  Paradise  Lost,  Book  III. 


28o  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Other  creature.  Among  men,  as  there  is  disinterested 
virtue,  so  there  is  disinterested  sin.  Those  therefore 
who  endeavour  to  express  the  whole  philosophy  of 
sin  by  the  one  word  "  selfishness  "  are  hardly  correct. 
From  these  facts  is  deduced  the  conclusion,  that 
the  devil  has  somehow  identified  himself  with  evil, 
a  divorce  between  him  and  sin  being  not  practicable. 
He  is  beyond  salvation  ;  his  wounds  are  everlasting 
because  incurable. 

In  the  case  of  man  also  the  verdict  of  "Guilty"  is 
returned,  but "  Guilty  with  extenuating  circumstances." 
His  sin  is  not  beyond  remedy,  which  seems  to  be  the 
reason  why  God  interfered  graciously  on  our  behalf, 
whilst  He  delivered  the  angels  which  kept  not  their 
first  estate  "into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved 
unto  judgment."  In  pronouncing  judgment  on  human 
sin,  He  holds  out  hope  of  pardon  for  the  sinner.  God 
curses  the  serpent,  curses  the  ground,  but  He  nowhere 
curses  man.  The  maledictions  of  heaven  descend 
after  the  Fall  a  heavy  shower ;  but,  as  we  say  in 
Wales,  it  is  rain  through  sunshine,  and  serves  to 
paint,  on  the  black  thunderclouds  overhanging  the 
Garden,  a  beautiful  rainbow  of  promise.  The  guilty 
pair  are  driven  out  of  Paradise,  but,  marching  arm- 
in-arm,  sad  and  disconsolate,  their  countenances 
brighten,  their  eyes  sparkle,  as,  passing  out  through 
the  portals  of  Eden,  they  behold  with  admiration 
the  lovely  Bow  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  overarching 
their  sky.  Hope  still  remains.  Herein  is  the  clue 
to  the  Greek  fable  of  Pandora's  box. 

I.  The  first  man  is  here  placed  in  a  state  of 
discipline  :  "  Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ;  in 
sorrow   shalt   thou   eat   it  all  the  days  of  thy  life  ; 


THE  PROTEVANGEL:  DAWN  OF  HOPE    28 1 

thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee  " 
(vers.  17,  18).  ''For  tliy  sake''  is  capable  of  two 
interpretations. 

Because  of  thy  sin  the  earth  must  be  blasted  with 
comparative  barrenness.  So  close  is  the  connection 
between  the  moral  and  physical,  that  the  transgres- 
sion of  man  brought  down  a  devastating  blight  upon 
nature.  The  apostasy  of  man  meant  the  thraldom 
and  the  frustration  of  the  energies  of  nature,  "  as  a 
kingdom  falls  with  its  king."  Commenting  accord- 
ing to  his  wont  on  this  passage,  St.  Paul  gives  us 
as  far-reaching  a  piece  of  imaginative  writing  as  can 
anywhere  be  found  ;  but,  because  it  is  imagination, 
let  no  one  think  it  is  fiction.  "  The  creation  was 
made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason 
of  Him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope.  .  .  For 
we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now "  (Rom.  viii. 
20-22).  A  thinker  of  less  ethical  intensity  than  St. 
Paul  might  call  this  description  morbid,  exaggerated, 
sentimental.  But  view  nature  from  a  moral  stand- 
point, and  every  word  finds  its  instant  justification. 
Account  for  it  as  we  may,  a  wail  of  sorrow  pervades 
the  universe.  The  wind,  coursing  along,  moans  in 
every  tree  and  mourns  round  every  corner.  Go  to 
the  seaside,  and  every  wave  dies  with  a  groan.  Listen 
to  the  blackbird — whilst  there  is  unutterable  sweet- 
ness in  his  whistle,  yet  underneath  all  his  notes  there 
is  an  undertone  of  sadness.  There  is  not  a  bird  in 
the  forest  which  does  not  touch  the  minor  key.  Hear 
the  bleating  of  the  lamb,  and  note  therein  the  tremor 
of  sorrow.  Ascend  up  to  man,  and  suffering 
dominates  his  history.     There  are  languages  like  the 


282  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Welsh,  tearful  and  burdened  with  grief,  half  blown 
away  by  the  wind.  Very  significant  is  it  that  the 
first  word  of  Greek  poetry  should  be  "  Alas ! " 
"  Alas  !  Linus."  To  most  of  us  no  poetry  is  so  de- 
lightful as  that  which  helps  us  to  weep,  no  music 
so  sweet  as  that  which  carries  infinite  sadness  in 
its  heart. 

Everything  in  nature  seems  abortive ;  nothing 
realises  its  destiny,  achieving  the  full  purpose  of  its 
creation.  When  man  fell,  nature  grew  sick ;  the 
curse  of  God  laid  hold  of  the  core  of  the  world  ;  the 
whole  creation  " groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  "  like 
a  woman  in  childbirth.  Inhabitants  of  towns  may 
think  the  language  exaggerated,  "  sicklied  o'er  with 
the  pale  cast  of  thought,"  but  countrymen  know 
better.  Not  so  far  from  truth  as  might  at  first  sight 
appear  is  the  ancient  fancy  that  the  world  is  a  living 
animal.  Near  my  native  home  lies  a  swampy  meadow. 
On  calm,  frosty  nights  screams  of  anguish  were  often 
heard  ;  men  would  grow  ill  in  sympathy  with  the 
pain  of  creation.  I  myself  heard  the  groaning,  time 
and  again.  Ever  since,  St.  Paul's  figure  has  been 
to  me  the  most  vivid  and  real  in  all  literature.  The 
simple  folk  of  the  neighbourhood  often  heard  it,  and 
their  vivid  imagination  pictured  nature  as  a  lady  in 
white  slain  by  her  unappeasable  foes.  Science  ex- 
plains the  phenomenon  by  the  contracting  power  of 
frost,  cracking  and  rending  the  swamp.  But  oh,  the 
scream  of  pain,  the  cry  of  agony,  from  the  very  heart 
of  creation,  making  the  flesh  shiver  as  in  the  presence 
of  a  disconsolate  ghost !  Science  cannot  explain  that. 
However,  Moses  in  Genesis  and  Paul  in  the  Romans 
furnish  the  solution  :  "  Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy 


THE   PROTEVANGEL:  DAWN   OF  HOPE         283 

sake."    "  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now." 

"  Thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  unto 
thee."  The  idea  is  not  that  now  thorns  and  thistles 
were  first  created,  but  that,  instead  of  unfolding  into 
their  full  splendour  and  usefulness,  they  would 
deteriorate  into  stunted,  dwarfish  growths,  unable 
to  realise  their  true  destiny.  The  thorns,  fully 
developed,  make  the  rose  bushes,  which  gratify  the 
eye  with  the  richness  of  their  colour,  and  delight  the 
nostrils  with  the  sweetness  of  their  fragrance.  The 
thistle,  fully  unfolded,  produces  the  glorious  cactus 
flower ;  but  under  the  curse  it  has  been  frustrated 
and  marred,  has  become  a  prodigal  among  the  herbs 
of  the  field,  and  is  an  eye-sore  and  vexation  of 
spirit  to  the  husbandman.  What  was  intended 
for  use  and  ornament  has  been  perverted  into 
physical  evil  and  abortion.  Clearly  perceiving 
the  close  connection  between  the  moral  and  the 
physical.  Bishop  Butler  long  ago  taught  that  the 
laws  of  nature  are  favourable  to  virtue,  but  inimical 
to  vice.  His  argument  refurbished  and  applied  to 
Providence  is  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold's  well-known 
saying  that  "  there  is  in  the  world  a  power,  not 
ourselves,  making  for  righteousness."  But  the 
power,  which  protects  righteousness,  at  the  same 
time  militates  against  unrighteousness.  From  the 
beginning  until  now,  when  man  rebels  against  God 
nature  revolts  against  man  ;  when  man  refuses  to 
yield  to  the  Supreme  the  harvest  of  a  holy  life, 
the  earth  declines  to  give  to  man  the  fruit  of  her 
increase.  Because  of  the  apostasy  of  humanity. 
Nature  has  been  turned  aside  from  the  normal  path 


284  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

of  her  development.  A  truth  this  much  accentuated 
and  enlarged  upon  by  the  prophets  of  Israel,  and 
abundantly  verified  in  the  present  day  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  fertility  of  the  land  in  Christian  and 
in  heathen  countries. 

Another  signification  of  the  phrase  ^^  for  thy  sake  " 
is,  for  thy  good,  to  promote  thy  well-being.  That 
this  is  exegetically  correct  may  be  questioned,  but 
the  truth  this  interpretation  conveys  is  undeniable 
and  in  deepest  harmony  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
Holy  Writ.  Idleness,  ease  of  life,  abundance  of 
luxuries  without  corresponding  labour,  would  only 
aggravate  our  sinful  condition.  To  sinless  man 
the  ease  of  the  Paradisiac  life  were  a  boon,  for  his 
leisure  he  would  utilise  to  pierce  more  deeply  into 
the  secrets  of  nature  and  to  cultivate  closer  fellow- 
ship with  the  spiritual  world.  To  a  man  already 
weighted  with  sinful  propensities,  however,  too  much 
leisure  would  only  multiply  his  opportunities  to 
sink  deeper  in  the  mire.  Never  stand  still  in  a 
bog  ;  safety  consists  in  passing  on  as  rapidly  and 
lightly  as  possible.  In  mercy  God  made  hard  labour 
a  condition  of  the  continuance  of  life  :  "  And  the 
Lord  God  said.  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one 
of  Us,  to  know  good  and  evil  :  and  now,  lest  he  put 
forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of  the  Tree  of  Life, 
and  eat,  and  live  for  ever  :  therefore  the  Lord  God 
sent  him  forth  from  the  garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the 
ground  from  whence  he  was  taken"  (vers.  22,  23). 
Originally  he  was  placed  inside  the  Garden  "  to  dress 
it  and  keep  it," — where  he  would  meet  with  diffi- 
culties enough  to  stimulate  his  powers  of  invention, 
but    where     his     efforts    would     be     exempt     from 


THE  PROTEVANGEL:   DAWN   OF  HOPE  285 

exhaustion,  continuousness,  and  over-fatigue.  In 
the  Edenic  state  the  inherent  intractableness  of 
nature  would  present  opposition  enough  to  call 
forth  whatever  mechanical  skill  and  artistic  capa- 
bilities he  possessed.  The  idea  that  sin  was  indis- 
pensable to  the  rise  of  the  arts  and  sciences  has 
here  no  countenance.  Is  it  not  nearer  the  truth  to 
say  that,  instead  of  hastening,  sin  delayed  their 
development  ?  But  in  consequence  of  the  Fall  he  is 
sent  out  of  the  Garden  to  till  the  surrounding  district, 
which  was  less  amenable  to  cultivation  than  the 
enclosed  park.  Add  to  this  the  impoverishment 
of  the  soil  as  the  result  of  the  curse,  and  you  will 
perceive  that  the  labour  which  was  before  enjoyable 
and  exhilarating  is  converted  into  a  burden  and  a 
vexation.  Yet  in  this  lies  the  hope  of  man's 
recovery ;  this  hard  task  is  allotted  him  quite  as 
much  in  mercy  as  in  judgment. 

With  the  expulsion  of  man  from  Paradise  began 
the  Economy  of  Divine  Grace :  "  So  God  drove 
out  the  man  ;  and  He  placed  at  the  east  of  the 
garden  of  Eden  Cherubim  and  a  Flaming  Sword 
which  turned  every  way."  Who  was  the  driver  ? 
Divine  Justice  ?  Not  it  alone,  else  it  would  drive 
man  to  hell-fire  before  stopping.  In  whose  hands 
is  the  Sword  of  Flame?  In  the  hands  of  Justice? 
Nay,  else  man  would  have  been  forthwith  executed  ; 
but  in  the  hands  of  the  Cherubim — symbols,  where- 
ever  they  are  found,  of  Divine  Grace.  Without 
entering  into  the  intricate  discussion  concerning  the 
nature,  form,  and  functions  of  these  mystic  figures, 
suffice  it  to  say  that  wherever  they  appear  they  are 
always   emblems   of   God's   presence   to   bless.     We 


286  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

live  now,  therefore,  under  a  mixed  dispensation.  It 
is  not  all  justice,  for  the  Cherubim  stand  there,  the 
unmistakable  representatives  of  God's  mercy.  It 
is  not  all  grace,  for  the  Sword  of  Flame  is  there, 
always  ready  to  execute  judgment.  Yes,  a  glittering 
sword  is  ever  brandished  in  front  of  guilty  man, 
mysteriously  "  turning  every  way,"  and  by  its  strange 
revolutions  driving  him  back  to  the  path  of  duty 
and  obedience.  If  he  wander  far,  the  sword  will 
smite  him  all  of  a  sudden.  But  the  sword  is  in  the 
hands  of  Divine  Grace — longsuffering  and  forbear- 
ance characterise  all  Divine  visitations.  The  truth 
here  emblemed  is  that  man  now  lives  under  a 
complex  dispensation  of  punishment  and  discipline. 
He  is  sent  forth  to  the  wilderness  to  till  its  arid 
soil ;  but,  cultivating  the  earth,  he  refines  his  own 
heart  ;  uprooting  the  thorns  and  thistles  in  the  field, 
he  eradicates  simultaneously  the  lusts  and  covetous 
desires  growing  rank  in  his  own  nature.  Man  is 
drilled  to  restraint  on  the  one  hand,  to  holiness  on 
the  other.  The  course  is  long,  but  the  final  issue 
will  be  compensation  enough  for  all  the  trials  of 
the  journey  :  "  No  chastening  for  the  present  seemeth 
to  be  joyous,  but  grievous  :  nevertheless  afterward 
it  yieldeth  the  peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness  unto 
them  who  are  exercised  thereby"  (Heb.  xii.  ii). 
True  this  of  the  individual,  true  also  of  the  race. 

Not  long  ago  an  ever-memorable  view  of  the 
heavens  was  witnessed,  a  grand  panorama,  on  the 
coast  of  Cardigan  Bay.  As  the  day  was  drawing 
to  a  close,  big  black  clouds  gathered  themselves 
together  for  miles  upon  the  horizon.  At  a  distance, 
they  seemed  like  the  wreck  of  ten  thousand  worlds 


THE  PROTEVANGEL  :  DAWN   OF   HOPE         287 

scattered  about  in  wildest  confusion,  mountains  and 
towers  thrown  helter-skelter  together,  crags  and 
precipices  piled  on  one  another  in  rankest  disorder, 
and  here  and  there  a  valley  turned  upside  down  in 
the  midst  of  chaos.  Gradually  the  sun  descended 
the  slope  of  the  firmament,  and  became  lost  to  sight 
behind  the  huge  mass  of  solid  darkness.  Presently 
it  was  evident  that  a  terrible  struggle  was  going  on 
in  the  west ;  anon  the  fringe  of  the  chaos  became 
tinged  with  gold,  the  dark  mass  heaved  up  and 
down  in  endless  convolutions,  ere  long  it  shattered 
into  ten  million  rose  leaves — there  they  lay  like  a 
harvest  of  red  roses  in  most  lavish  profusion  ;  and 
the  sun  set,  having  transfigured  the  clouds,  and  rose 
the  following  morning,  having  utterly  chased  them 
away.  Thus  looking  back  to  the  history  of  the 
Fall  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis,  in  the  far-off 
horizon  of  time,  we  see  big,  black,  ominous  clouds 
gathered  together  and  hiding  Paradise  from  view. 
Presently  God  is  seen  descending  the  brow  of  the 
heavens,  towards  sundown,  in  the  cool  of  the  evening. 
One  might  rashly  conclude  that  He  also  is  lost  in 
the  weltering  ruins.  But  anon  the  fringe  of  the 
chaos  begins  to  be  tinged,  the  promise  of  the 
woman's  Seed  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head  gilds 
the  clouds  with  brightest  gold,  the  dark  mass  begins 
to  break,  the  whole  firmament  of  history  is  variegated 
with  light  and  shade  and  all  the  seven  colours  ; 
gradually  the  whole  scene  will  be  transformed  into 
the  unsullied  light  of  the  everlasting  day. 

From  the  dark  we  generally  obtain  the  bright. 
From  the  dark  earth  comes  the  gas  which  lights  our 
homes.     From  the  bitterest  herbs  are  extracted  the 


288  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

most  efficacious  medicines.  From  the  blackness 
of  coal  are  evolved  the  most  sunlike  diamonds. 
Under  the  overruling  Providence  of  God,  sin  will 
also  be  made  to  redound  to  the  glory  of  His  name, 
and  to  contribute  to  the  good  of  our  race.  This 
reconciles  us  to  the  fact.  As  we  read  Genesis  and 
witness  the  havoc  and  devastation  it  works  there, 
our  souls  tumble  up  and  down  within  us,  and  we 
marvel  in  the  depths  of  our  spirits  that  God  should 
permit  such  a  monster  to  obtrude  his  presence  in  the 
world ;  but  when  we  glance  over  the  last  chapter  of 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John  the  Divine,  and  behold 
the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth  wherein  dwelleth 
righteousness,  our  sorrow  is  turned  into  joy.  Studying 
the  opening  chapters  of  the  Bible,  we  are  immeasur- 
ably saddened  at  the  sight  of  man  banished  from 
his  home  into  the  wilderness  ;  but  when  we  follow 
him  through  all  his  labyrinthine  wanderings  and  see 
him  emerge  out  of  the  howling  desert,  and  safely 
sheltered,  not  under  the  green  bowers  of  another 
Eden,  but  in  the  stately  mansions  of  the  New 
Jerusalem,  polished  after  the  similitude  of  a  palace, 
we  praise  God  for  the  necessity  which  sent  him  a 
wanderer. 

II.  Let  it  be  further  marked  that  "unto  Adam 
also,  and  unto  his  wife,  did  the  Lord  God  make 
coats  of  skins,  and  clothed  them." 

"  God  knoweth,"  said  the  tempter,  "  that  in  the  day 
ye  eat  thereof  your  eyes  shall  be  opened."  Writers 
of  rationalistic  sympathies  declare  this  to  be  a  step 
forward  in  knowledge,  a  discovery  of  value,  and  sin 
to  be  necessary  in  order  to  make  it.  Hence  the  Fall, 
they  say,  was  a  Fall  upward.     To  reason  thus,  how- 


THE  PROTEVANGEL  :   DAWN   OF   HOPE         2B9 

ever,  is  altogether  to  miss  the  point  of  the  narrative. 
There  is  an  opening  of  eyes,  which  is  loss,  not  gain. 
"  He  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments."  The 
enlightenment  here  is  in  the  bad,  not  the  good,  sense. 
Hear  the  confession  of  the  young  man,  raw  and 
green,  after  his  first  visit  to  London.  He  met  there 
with  a  man  of  plausible  appearance  and  fair  words. 
He  listened  and  followed,  thinking  the  company 
reflected  distinction  on  himself,  and  was  the  first  step 
in  the  ladder  of  social  advancement.  Submitting  to 
his  bland  persuasion,  he  followed  him  into  a  house  of 
entertainment  ;  he  came  out — robbed  of  his  money, 
despoiled  of  his  watch,  divested  of  his  self-respect. 
His  eyes  were  opened,  and  he  saw  that  he  was  naked. 
Was  that  an  advance,  a  development,  a  fall  upward 
in  his  career  ?  Ask  him,  and  his  eyes,  glowing  like 
flames  of  fire,  will  give  you  the  lie  direct.  Better 
be  blind  than  see  the  revelry.  In  his  country  home 
he  saw  God  and  Nature  and  Goodness  ;  to  evil  he 
was  blind.  The  opening  of  his  eyes  to  the  midnight 
orgies  is  the  one  damnable  spot  in  his  history.  The 
promise  always  ends  in  bitter  disappointment  and 
sore  humiliation.  That  was  exactly  the  opening  of 
the  eyes  Adam  and  Eve  experienced.  Incited  by 
curiosity.  Eve  beguiled  Adam  to  join  her  to  look 
behind  the  curtain.  What  did  they  see  ?  Sin,  guilt, 
fear,  shame,  death.  Better  had  their  eyes  never  been 
thus  opened  ! 

But  before  they  were  naked,  now  they  are  clothed  ; 
is  not  that  progress?  Is  not  raiment  generally  an 
index  to  a  man's  place  in  the  scale  of  civilisation? 
Where  pure  savagery  prevails,  men  go  utterly  naked  ; 
the   moment  they  emerge  from  unmixed  barbarism, 

19 


IgO  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

they  go  about  partly  clad  ;  where  civilisation  is  firmly 
established,  men  garment  themselves  from  the  crown 
of  the  head  to  the  sole  of  the  foot.  Nakedness  is  a 
sign  of  barbarism,  clothes  of  civilisation.  This  reason- 
ing, however,  is  more  plausible  than  true.  Even  now 
the  two  extremes  of  existence  are,  by  the  highest 
art,  always  represented  in  a  state  of  nudity — the 
babe  and  the  god.  The  babe  is  not  ashamed  of  its 
nakedness,  not  because  it  wants  sensibility,  but 
because  it  lacks  sinful  consciousness.  Where  the 
motions  of  sin  are  absent,  drapery  is  superfluous. 
At  the  other  end  is  the  god.  A  god  clothed  is  no 
god.  Art  at  its  highest  is  always  nude.  The  ideal 
needs  no  clothing,  having  no  defects  to  hide.  The 
need  of  clothing  arises  with  the  consciousness  of 
imperfection.  Hence,  where  the  sense  of  the  ideal 
is  not  awakened,  and  the  consciousness  of  disagree- 
ment between  body  and  spirit  is  not  evoked,  as  in 
the  babe  and  barbarian,  clothing  is  a  redundancy. 
On  the  other  hand,  where  the  ideal  is  reached,  where 
no  discord  between  the  corporeal  and  spiritual  obtains, 
as  in  the  god,  raiment  is  superfluous. 

Adam  and  Eve  in  their  Paradisiacal  state  expe- 
rienced no  conflict,  no  rent  in  their  consciousness  ; 
the  ideal  and  actual  corresponded  :  hence  no  shame, 
and  therefore  no  clothing.  But  once  they  sinned  they 
became  painfully  conscious  of  the  dissonance,  and  in- 
stinctively endeavoured  to  ignore  the  gap  by  covering 
it.  In  the  first  instance,  then,  clothing  denotes  a 
consciousness  of  moral  delinquency.  But  the  fact 
that  they  are  ashamed  is  to  their  credit.  The  more 
the  shame,  the  worthier  of  respect ;  and  thus, 
secondarily,  clothing  becomes  a  sign  of  civilisation. 


THE  PROTEVANGEL  :  DAWN  OF  HOPE    29 1 

The  devil  sinned,  and  is  not  ashamed ;  always  in 
the  presence  of  God  he  is  insolent,  sarcastic,  brazen- 
faced. His  shamelessness  is  his  damnation.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  shame  of  Adam  and  Eve  affords  a 
sure  evidence  that  their  reclamation  is  possible.  Had 
men  not  sinned,  would  they  ever  remain  unclothed  ? 
I  cannot  tell.  But  art  is  not  dependent  on  fashions  ; 
it  aims  at  nobler  ideals  than  the  reproduction  of 
Elizabethan  costumes  or  the  imitation  of  Parisian 
modes.     Perfect  art  is  perfect  nudity. 

Adam  and  Eve  "sewed  fig  leaves  together,  and 
made  themselves  aprons."  "But  unto  them  God 
made  coats  of  skins,  and  clothed  them."  Where  did 
the  skins  come  from  ?  Here  we  are  confronted  with 
a  problem  which  has  much  exercised  the  theologic 
mind — Is  sacrifice  a  human  invention  or  a  Divine 
appointment  ?  The  supposition  that  our  first  parents, 
remorseful  and  deeply  conscious  of  their  need  of 
pardon,  should  endeavour  to  propitiate  the  offended 
Judge  by  the  offering  of  a  sacrifice  carries  with  it 
no  intrinsic  incongruity.  Many  able  theologians, 
therefore,  such  as  Bahr  and  Tholuck,  have  adopted, 
with  variations,  this  view.  But  for  this  instinct  of 
human  nature  to  embody  itself  in  a  suitable  outward 
ceremony  time  was  requisite— more  time  than  the 
history  seems  to  allow.  Hence  I  incline  to  the 
view  that  sacrifice  is  a  Divine  institution,  not  in 
contradiction,  but  rather  in  perfect  conformity,  with 
the  deepest  instincts  of  human  nature.  To  me  there 
is  poetic  grandeur  in  the  view  that  as  God  offered 
the  last  sacrifice  on  Calvary  so  He  officiated  at  the 
first  sacrifice  in  Eden  !  I  like  to  trace  the  scarlet 
line  of  continuity,  without  a  break,  all  the  way  from 


292  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Paradise  to  Golgotha  !  With  the  skins  of  the  animals 
slain  in  sacrifice  He  clothed  the  nakedness  of  the 
shame  of  the  first  sinners.  This  is  not  distinctly 
stated  ;  but  we  should  remember  that  a  period  longer 
than  the  Christian  era  is  compressed  into  two  or 
three  chapters  in  Genesis.  In  the  reflected  light  of 
the  remainder  of  Divine  Revelation,  and  in  the  light 
of  the  human  nature  shared  by  us  as  well  as  by 
them,  we  must  try  to  fill  the  hiatus. 

Assuming  the  Divine  origin  of  sacrifices,  can  we 
imagine  that  God  gave  the  trembling,  astonished 
spectators  no  enlightenment  concerning  its  import? 
The  promulgation  of  the  promise,  the  institution  of 
sacrifice,  the  investiture  of  Adam  and  Eve,  their 
expulsion  from  the  Garden,  the  placing  of  the 
Cherubim  and  the  Sword  of  Fire  to  the  east  of 
Eden,  was  not  a  transaction  of  five  minutes.  Pro- 
bably it  took  as  many  hours,  nay,  as  many  days, 
when  God  and  our  first  parents  were  in  constant 
fellowship,  and  when  the  latter  learnt  more  about  the 
way  of  Salvation  than  we  are  ready  to  give  them 
credit  for.  Whereas  the  older  theologians  probably 
magnified  their  knowledge,  moderns  seem  to  delight 
in  reducing  it  to  the  lowest  possible  minimum. 
Indeed,  their  knowledge  is  represented  as  so  misty 
and  vague  that  it  differs  in  nothing  from  blank 
ignorance.  The  golden  mean  is  doubtless  the  best. 
They  possessed  not  the  definite  conceptions  of  New 
Testament  saints  ;  at  the  same  time  they  could  not 
have  been  left  to  dreamy,  uncertain  guesswork,  with- 
out a  firm  rock  for  faith  to  put  down  the  sole  of  her 
foot.  Adam,  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah  believed.  The 
question  naturally  arises.  What  in  ?     They  must  have 


THE   PROTEVANGEL:   DAWN   OF   HOPE  293 

had  a  firm  grip  on  some  of  the  fundamental  trnths 
of  revealed  religion,  else  they  could  never  have 
withstood  steadfastly  the  terrible  shock  of  ungodliness 
in  the  antediluvian  world.  In  the  primal  revelation 
a  foundation  sufficiently  strong  must  have  been 
given  to  bear  the  superstructure  of  the  following 
millenniums. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  limitations  of  Adam's 
knowledge  of  Salvation,  our  knowledge  is  clear  and 
definite.  The  best  solution  to  the  mystery  of  the 
Fall  through  the  first  Adam  is  the  mystery  of  the 
Rise  through  the  Second  Adam.  Call  to  mind  once 
more  St.  Paul's  parallel  and  contrast  between  them. 
Whatever  objections  we  may  be  inclined  to  urge 
against  the  arrangements  of  God's  Providence,  they 
are  all  more  than  met  when  we  review  the  ordinances 
of  His  Grace.  "  By  the  disobedience  of  one  many 
were  made  sinners."  Against  such  an  arrangement 
our  will  rebels,  we  protest  in  indignant  tones  ;  why 
should  the  disobedience  of  Adam  involve  us  in  sin  ? 
Why  should  an  act  performed  six  thousand  years 
ago  entail  misery  on  me  ?  Why  should  it  embitter 
my  time  and  imperil  my  eternity  ?  Why  am  I 
subjected  to  suffering  because  of  what  another  did 
millenniums  before  I  was  ushered  into  existence? 
Such  impious  questionings  do  arise  in  the  heart,  and 
there  is  no  suppressing  them.  "  By  the  disobedience 
of  one  many  were  made  sinners."  Is  there  any 
remedy  ?  Yes  ;  "  so  by  the  obedience  of  One  many 
shall  be  made  righteous."  We  have  no  objection  to 
partake  of  the  benefits  which  come  through  Christ  : 
that  should  reconcile  us  to  the  ills  which  came 
through    Adam.       What    is    it    any   of   us   have   to 


294  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

complain  of?  Do  we  complain  that  God  should 
so  arrange  the  events  of  Providence  as  to  make  us 
partakers  of  the  sin  of  our  race  without  our  know- 
ledge or  consent?  This  is  the  way  wherein  Divine 
Revelation  meets  us — God  is  this  very  moment 
holding  out  to  us  the  relief  which  we  need,  He  offers 
to  extricate  us  from  our  racial  and  personal  sin,  on 
the  simple  condition  of  implicit  trust  in  Him. 

Close  to  the  disease  is  the  cure.  The  Israelites 
were  bitten  by  serpents  in  the  wilderness.  Many 
a  speculative  man  in  the  camp  might  wonder  why 
God  should  create  serpents.  They  are  not  good 
for  food,  neither  are  they  good  for  service ;  appar- 
ently they  are  good  for  nothing  except  to  bite  and 
kill.  He  might  utter  violent  complaints  against  the 
Divine  Wisdom  and  Goodness  in  creating  serpents 
at  all.  But  if  the  God  who  made  the  serpent  to 
bite  ordered  another  Serpent  of  Brass  to  heal  all 
who  turned  their  eyes  in  its  direction,  certainly 
the  ground  of  complaint  is  taken  from  under  his 
feet.  So  speculative  Englishmen  wonder  that  God 
permitted  sin  to  contaminate  our  nature,  and  utter 
their  murmurs  accordingly  ;  but  when  God  has 
from  the  beginning  provided  a  way  to  wash  away 
the  stain,  surely  it  were  wisdom  on  our  part  to 
hold  our  peace  and  silence  our  objections.  In  the 
West  Indies  there  grows,  it  is  said,  a  tree  called  the 
machaneel.  Its  appearance  is  specially  attractive 
and  its  wood  particularly  beautiful  ;  it  bears  an  apple 
resembling  our  golden  pippin.  This  fruit  looks 
tempting  and  smells  fragrant  ;  but  to  eat  of  it  is 
certain  death.  So  poisonous  is  its  sap  or  juice 
that,  if  a  few  drops  fall  on  the  hand,  it  blisters  the 


THE   PROTEVANGEL  :    DAWN   OF   HOPE  295 

skin  and  inflicts  acute  pain.  The  Indians  were 
wont  to  dip  their  arrows  in  the  juice,  that,  wounding 
their  enemies,  they  might  poison  them.  No  doubt 
many  a  poor,  stricken  man  felt  prompted  to  blame 
the  wisdom  of  the  Creator  for  making  a  tree  so 
fair  to  the  eyes,  yet  so  deadly  in  its  sap  and  fruit. 
But  Providence  has  so  appointed  it  that  one  of 
these  trees  is  never  found  but  near  it  grows  a  white 
wood  or  fig  tree,  the  sap  of  which,  if  applied  in 
time,  soothes  the  irritation  occasioned  by  the  poison 
of  the  other  :  counterparts  these  of  the  two  trees  in 
the  Garden  of  Eden.  This  fact  equalises  things 
wonderfully.  Thus  people  complain  because  the 
Tree  of  Knowledge  was  placed  in  the  same  garden 
as  man.  And  without  contradiction,  to  us  who 
can  only  perceive  the  surface  of  things,  it  does  look 
strange.  But  it  is  forgotten  or  overlooked  that  God 
planted  there  also  the  "  Tree  of  Life  in  the  midst  of 
the  garden,"  equidistant  from  all  the  corners.  Sin 
looks  pleasant  to  the  eye ;  men  desire  of  it,  eat, 
and  die.  But  the  remedy  is  at  hand.  "  Is  there 
not  balm  in  Gilead  ?  Is  there  not  a  physician 
there  ?  Why  therefore  is  the  hurt  of  the  daughter 
of  My  people  not  healed?" 

Are  you  burdened  with  the  multitude  of  your 
sins  ?  God  has  grace  enough  to  wipe  them  all  away. 
"  For  the  judgment  was  by  one  offence  to  condem- 
nation, but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto 
justification."  You  may  demur  to  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  because  of  one  offence,  it  may  appear 
harsh,  severe,  arbitrary  ;  but  over  against  it  is  the 
free  gift  unto  justification,  despite  not  one,  but  one 
million  offences.     "  By  one  offence  death  reigned  by 


296  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

one,"  and  you  find  grave  fault  that  one  man  through 
one  offence  should  entail  misery  on  the  millions  of 
mankind  ;  but  over  against  it  is  the  assurance,  "  much 
more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of 
the  gift  of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  life  by  one 
Jesus  Christ."  After  balancing  the  accounts,  there 
remains  a  "  surplus  [Trepicrcreia]  of  grace."  God's 
character  is  vindicated. 

III.  Contemplate  further  the  seminal  promise  of 
Salvation.  "  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and 
the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed  ;  he 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his 
heel,"  are  the  words  addressed  by  God  to  the  foe  of 
man.  Three  stages  are  discernible  in  this  promise 
of  victory. 

The  first  is  the  engendering  of  enmity  between  the 
serpent  and  the  woman,  the  tempter  and  the  tempted. 
The  alliance  between  the  evil  spirit  and  Adam  and 
Eve  is  abruptly  sundered.  The  sudden  revulsion 
of  feeling  which  possessed  our  first  parents  on  the 
discovery  of  their  nakedness  and  shame,  the  sense 
of  fiery  indignation  kindled  in  their  breasts  against 
the  duplicity  of  the  seducer,  were  favourable  to  win 
them  over  once  more  to  the  side  of  God  and  good- 
ness, and  to  establish  perpetual  hatred  in  them  to 
the  spirit  of  evil.  That  they  sinned  oft  in  after-years 
cannot  be  doubted  ;  still  to  the  spirit  of  evil  they 
presented  uniform  hostility.  The  ve^se,  "  And 
Adam  called  his  wife's  name  Eve,  because  she  was 
the  mother  of  all  living,"  contains  an  intimation 
that  they  now  passed  over  from  a  state  of  sin  to  a 
state  of  grace.  Formerly  Adam  called  his  wife  Isha  ; 
^ow  he  names  her  Havvah  (Eve) — a  change  of  name 


THE    PROTEVANGEL  :   DAWN   OF   HOPE  297 

indicative  of  a  change  of  objective  relation  to  God 
and  subjective  relation  to  sin.  They  passed  over 
from  a  state  of  condemnation  to  a  state  of  salvation. 
After  this  the  curtain  is  practically  dropped  on  the 
unhappy  pair.  Not  once  again  are  their  names 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  except  perhaps  in 
Hos.  vii.  6,  and  there  the  reference  is  doubtful.  On 
the  pages  of  the  four  Gospels  their  names  are  not 
recorded  once,  except  in  St.  Luke's  genealogical  table. 
The  Lord  Jesus  mentions  Abel  and  Noah,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  Moses,  David,  and  Isaiah  ;  but  not 
once  do  the  names  of  Adam  and  Eve  drop  over  His 
sacred  lips.  Divine  propriety  dictates  reserve  respect- 
ing the  man  and  woman  who  wrought  such  a  terrible 
catastrophe  in  the  Divine  government  of  the  world. 
"  They  themselves  were  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire." 

The  second  stage  is  the  antagonism  between  the 
serpent's  seed  and  the  woman's  seed.  That  these 
terms  convey  an  ethical,  not  a  physical,  meaning 
is  clear.  Immediately  after,  the  human  race  is  seen 
divided  into  two  seeds  or  camps,  that  of  Cain  and 
that  of  Seth.  The  inner,  ethical  relation  between 
them  is  enmity.  It  began  in  the  murder  of  Abel, 
the  woman's  seed,  by  Cain,  the  serpent's  seed.  The 
enmity  has  been  restrained,  checked,  civilised,  but 
it  has  never  been  extinguished :  "  All  that  will  live 
godly  shall  suffer  persecution"  (2  Tim.  iii.  12).  The 
whole  of  'Church  history,  whether  under  the  Old 
or  the  New  Testament,  is  only  an  account  of  this 
Holy  Crusade,  the  warfare  between  the  seed  of  the 
woman  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  between  the 
forces  of  good  and  the  forces  of  evil,  between  the 
Church    and    the   world.     In    Old    Testament   times 


298  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

the  victory  oftenest  lay  with  the  brood  of  the  serpent ; 
once  and  again  the  Church  was  so  hard  pressed 
that  the  very  last  sparks  of  true  religion  seemed 
on  the  verge  of  extinction.  The  tide  of  battle 
flowed  in  favour  of  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  and 
the  permanent  victory  of  evil  over  good  was  well-nigh 
secured. 

The  third  stage  arrived  when  all  the  energies 
of  good  were  gathered  together  in  One — pre- 
eminently the  Seed  of  the  woman.  There  is  ever- 
more a  tendency  in  evil  and  in  good  to  gather  into 
a  head,  to  concentrate  themselves  in  distinguished 
personages.  The  forces  of  nature  raise  mountains  ; 
the  forces  of  mind  produce  geniuses ;  the  forces 
of  evil  produce  villains  ;  the  forces  of  good  make 
saints.  In  accordance  with  this  general  law,  though 
not  in  virtue  of  it  alone,  the  seed  of  the  woman 
culminated  at  last  in  the  Seed  par  exxellence  :  "  In 
the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  made 
of  a  woman."  Singular  that  the  Seed  of  the  Woman 
should  be  the  term  used.  Everywhere  else  it  is 
the  seed  of  the  man — the  seed  of  Abraham,  the 
seed  of  David  :  here  the  Seed  of  the  Woman.  The 
singularity  of  the  name  points  to  an  anomaly  in 
the  Seed  ;  is  it  a  dark  prefiguration  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Incarnation? 

At  last  the  Seed  appeared,  turned  the  tide  of 
battle,  and  secured  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
human  race  over  all  the  powers  of  darkness.  The 
serpent  and  the  Seed  met  in  a  terrible  encounter 
in  the  wilderness  :  "  Then  saith  Jesus  unto  him, 
Get  thee  hence,  Satan  :  for  it  is  written,  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou 


THE   PROTEVANGEL  :    DAWN    OF   HOPE  299 

serve.  Then  the  devil  leaveth  Ilim"  (Matt.  iv. 
10,  11).  In  this  encounter  man  wins  the  victory. 
Adam  fell  in  a  garden  ;  Christ  stood  in  a  wilderness. 
Adam  apostatised  in  the  midst  of  plenty ;  Christ 
remained  steadfast  when  He  was  an  hungred.  "  The 
devil  Cometh,  but  he  hath  nothing  in  Me."  "  Now 
is  the  judgment  [Kpla-L^]  of  this  world  :  now  shall  the 
prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out"  (John  xii.  31). 
"  Now  is  your  hour,  and  the  power  of  darkness."  The 
two  champions  meet,  the  Champion  of  Good  and 
the  Champion  of  Evil.  What  is  the  issue  of  the 
combat  ? — "  Having  spoiled  principalities  and  powers, 
He  made  a  show  of  them  openly,  triumphing  over 
them  in  Himself"  (Col.  ii.  15).  Victory  always 
rests,  not  with  the  party  who  wins  the  first  battle, 
but  with  the  party  who  wins  the  last.  The  devil 
conquered  man  in  Eden  ;  man  conquered  the  devil 
on  Calvary.  Ever  since  the  Seed  of  the  woman 
is  routing  the  seed  of  the  serpent  ;  the  kingdom 
of  light  is  ever  enlarging  its  territory,  and  the 
reign  of  darkness  is  contracting  in  the  reverse  ratio. 
The  victory  of  good  is  now  certain  ;  and  we  only 
await  the  cry  of  the  angel :  "  The  kingdoms  of 
this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord 
and  of  His  Christ,  and  He  shall  reign  for  ever 
and  ever"  (Rev.  xi.   15). 

This  is  one  of  the  distinctive  notes  of  Revealed 
Religion,  Hebrew  and  Christian — faith  in  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  good  over  evil.  All  heathen 
religions,  Aryan  and  Semitic,  hug  to  their  hearts 
the  incubus  of  pessimism  ;  according  to  all  of  them 
the  ages  degenerate,  mankind  deteriorate.  Gold, 
silver,  brass,  iron— that   is  the   order  of   history,  till 


300  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

it  reaches  its  goal  in  the  destruction  of  the  race. 
But  turn  to  the  Hebrew  reh'gion,  and  you  come 
across  a  wholly  different  class  of  ideas.  Admitting 
a  terrible  Fall  in  the  past,  it  cherishes  hope  in  the 
human  breast,  hope  of  victory  over  the  powers 
of  sin  and  suffering,  till  at  last  it  culminates  in 
Christian  optimism — a  blessed  assurance  that  God 
is  stronger  than  the  Devil,  that  Good  will  triumph 
over  Evil,  that  Virtue  will  conquer  Vice,  that 
Health  will  overcome  Disease,  that  Life  will  swallow 
up  Death.  Of  all  the  literatures  of  antiquity,  the 
Hebrew  Bible  alone  is  optimistic.  How  do  you 
account  for  it  ? 


CHAPTER    XII 

CAIN    AND   ABEL  :   EVIL   AND   GOOD 

AT  the  birth  of  her  firstborn,  Eve  rejoiced  greatly, 
and  "  called  his  name  Cain,  saying,  I  have 
gotten  a  man — Jehovah."  Whatever  be  the  precise 
signification  of  the  phrase,  it  indubitably  demon- 
strates that  large,  ennobling  thoughts  were  fermenting 
in  her  mind,  and  that  she  was  not  in  a  state  of 
helpless  ignorance  concerning  the  Promised  Seed. 
She  knew  that,  if  the  child  were  not  Jehovah  Himself 
in  human  nature — according  to  Luther's  translation, 
in  which  he  is  followed  by  Schmidt,  Pfeiffer,  Baum- 
garten,  and  others — he  was  at  all  events  a  special 
gift  of  Jehovah,  a  pledge  of  the  Divine  favour.^  But 
observing  the  odd,  queer  ways  of  her  firstborn,  his 
sullen  disposition,  his  irascible  temper,  his  fierce 
looks,  the  mother  did  not  feel  so  hopeful  and  buoyant 
at  the  birth  of  the  second  child  ;  therefore  she  called 

1  ''The  use  of  the  name  [Jehovah]  is  significant,  though 
we  cannot  think  that  Eve  already  knew  this  name  of  God, 
which  was  first  revealed  to  man  at  a  later  period  of  his 
history,  and  which  is  of  Hebrew  origin,  whereas  that  language 
probably  did  not  exist  until  the  time  of  the  dispersion  at 
Babel.  Yet,  doubtless,  the  historian  expresses  the  true 
meaning  of  Eve's  speech,  which  she  spoke,  inspired  by  that 
help  which  had  been  graciously  given  her  of  God"'  (Keil, 
Com.,  in  loco). 

301 


302  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

his  name  Abel,  which,  being  interpreted,  is  vapour, 
vanity,  grief.  Some  suppose  that  this  name  was 
given  him  retrospectively  by  succeeding  generations 
in  view  of  his  premature  death ;  but  seeing  Eve 
named  the  first  and  the  third — Cain  and  Seth— 
it  is  more  natural  to  assume  that  she  named  the 
second  also,  calling  him  Abel — Breath,  Vanity,  a 
sure  indication  of  her  then  inward  experience. 

Only  three  of  Adam's  sons  are  mentioned  by 
name — Cain,  Abel,  Seth  ;  but  the  historian  distinctly 
adds  that  "  the  days  of  Adam,  after  he  had  begotten 
Seth,  were  eight  hundred  years,  and  he  begat  sons 
and  daughters."  Considering  that  his  life  extended 
to  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years,  his  family  in  the 
course  of  nature  must  have  grown  very  numerous. 
Only  three,  however,  are  known  by  name,  because 
probably  they  were  the  three  eminently  destined 
to  influence  subsequent  history.  The  others  were 
ordinary  men  and  women,  possessing  no  marked 
features,  requiring  no  special  mention,  endeavouring 
as  best  they  could  to  discharge  the  duties  of  every- 
day life,  exhibiting  the  virtues  and  subject  to  the 
infirmities  which  have  characterised  the  race  through 
all  time.  But  Cain,  Abel,  and  Seth  were  not 
ordinary  men  ;  their  names  are  mentioned  with 
anathema  or  affection  down  to  the  present  day. 

For  all  practical  purposes,  Abel  and  Seth  may  be 
reckoned  as  one,  for  they  were  of  the  same  ethical 
type,  and  ordained  to  fulfil  the  same  function  in  the 
history  of  redemption  :  "  Eve  bare  a  son,  and  called 
his  name  Seth  :  For  God,  said  she,  hath  appointed 
me  another  seed  instead  of  Abel,  whom  Cain  slew  " 
(iv.    25).     How   did    she   know?     If  simply   in    the 


CAIN   AND  ABEL  :   EVIL  AND  GOOD  303 

power  of  maternal  instinct,  what  a  grand,  intelligent, 
holy  woman  she  must  have  been  !  More  probably, 
she  received,  as  Rebecca  did  in  after-years,  a  revealed 
intimation  respecting  the  particular  line  in  which 
the  Promised  Seed  should  appear.  Genesis  is  a 
record  of  Divine  revelation,  but  not  a  full  record, 
especially  of  the  earliest  dispensation.  It  is  easy  to 
perceive  by  the  language  and  religious  customs  of 
the  antediluvian  saints  that  they  obtained  communi- 
cations from  heaven,  which  are  not  detailed,  only 
assumed.  To  estimate  this  primitive  history  at  its 
proper  value,  it  is  expedient  that  wc  bear  in  mind 
that  the  busy  life  of  two  millenniums  is  condensed 
into  two  chapters.  Godly  imagination,  illumined 
by  scholarship,  and  guided  by  common  sense,  must 
fill  the  gaps. 

The  two  brothers  grew  up.  The  elder  became  a 
tiller  of  the  ground,  helped  his  father  to  dig,  sow, 
plant,  and  reap,  led  an  agricultural  life.  The  second 
became  a  shepherd,  watching  over  flocks  of  sheep 
and  goats  and  herds  of  cattle — an  avocation  for  which 
his 'gentle,  amiable  disposition  singularly  fitted  him. 
The  milk  was  now  wanted  for  the  fast  increasing 
family,  the  wool  and  skins  were  needed  for  garments, 
the  carcases  required  for  sacrifice,  and  probably  also 
for  food.  One  boy  was  told  off  to  look  after  the 
land,  the  other  to  supervise  the  flock.  "  Abel  was  a 
keeper  of  sheep  ;  but  Cain  was  a  tiller  of  the  ground." 
Thus  the  Bible  account  upsets  the  theory  favoured 
by  rationalists  and  materialistic  scientists,  that  man- 
kind began  life  as  hunters,  then  became  shepherds, 
and  last  of  all  developed  into  agriculturalists. 

The    two  callings   possibly  indicate   different  dis- 


304  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

positions  in  the  two  brothers.  Cain  was  passionate, 
strong-willed,  self-reliant,  conscious  of  energy  suffi- 
cient to  conquer  the  intractableness  of  the  soil  and 
countervail  the  effects  of  the  curse.  Abel,  on  the 
contrary,  was  quiet,  meditative,  sympathetic,  much 
addicted  to  solitary  thinking,  always  ready  to  help 
man  and  beast.  What  Esau  and  Jacob  were  in  the 
family  of  Isaac,  that  probably  were  Cain  and  Abel 
in  the  household  of  Adam.  People  speak  of  family 
likenesses,  but  there  are  family  unlikenesses  too. 
Have  you  observed  how  opposite  are  the  tendencies 
of  those  two  boys  of  yours?  One  is  wild,  adven- 
turous, untamable,  talks  of  going  to  sea,  and  wants 
to  know  what  a  lion-hunt  in  Africa  is  like,  and 
there  he  will  be  sooner  than  you  imagine.  The 
other  is  retiring,  thoughtful,  studious,  horrified  at  the 
idea  of  going  to  the  primeval  forest  to  fight  lions  and 
tigers  ;  but  is  determined  to  go  to  the  more  renowned 
universities,  there  to  contend  valiantly  with  men 
harder  to  beat  than  any  wild  beasts  in  African  or 
Indian  jungles.  In  the  first  family  these  consti- 
tutional differences  were  likely  more  marked  and 
pronounced  than  in  families  since.  Adam  and  Eve 
comprehended  the  genus  :  he  was  the  typical  man, 
she  the  typical  woman.  In  them  every  specific  type 
of  character  and  variety  of  disposition  had  their 
roots  ;  from  their  loins,  therefore,  men  of  diametri- 
cally opposite  propensities  sprang.  Types  in  men, 
like  breeds  in  animals,  may  gradually  be  hardened, 
stereotyped,  perpetuated  ;  but  at  the  dawn  of  history 
they  had  not  had  time  to  set.  The  greatest  variety 
prevailed  in  the  family  of  Adam  ;  hence  intermarriages 
between  brothers  and  sisters  in  his  home,  apart  from 


CAIN   AND   AHEL  :   EVIL  AND  GOOD  305 

the  necessity  of  the  situation,  were  justifiable  on  the 
deepest  physiological  ground. 

I.  Whilst  there  existed  probably  a  marked  differ- 
ence in  the  physical  constitutions  and  intellectual 
predilections  of  the  two  brothers,  Cain  and  Abel, 
yet  the  main  difference  was  moral.  Cain  remained 
in  a  state  of  unregeneracy,  whereas  Abel  became  heir 
of  the  promise  that  the  Seed  of  the  woman  should 
finally  triumph  over  the  seed  of  the  serpent.  ''  By 
faith,"  writes  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  "  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent 
sacrifice  than  Cain,  by  which  he  obtained  witness 
that  he  was  righteous,  God  testifying  to  his  gifts  ; 
and  by  it  he,  being  dead,  yet  speaketh  "  (Heb.  xi.  4). 
That  is  the  apostolic  commentary  on  this  passage 
in  Genesis,  and,  following  it,  we  cannot  go  far 
astray. 

The  two  brothers  differed  in  their  worship  of  God, 
because  they  fundamentally  diverged  in  the  ruling 
principles  of  their  lives.  Abel  possessed  faith,  and 
faith  has  always  regard  to  the  Divine  and  super- 
natural. Faith  is  not  a  natural  faculty  in  the  soul, 
like  reason,  imagination,  memory,  or  conscience,  but 
a  supernatural  gift.  "  Faith  is  the  gift  of  God,"  but 
a  gift  always  bestowed  on  those  morally  qualified 
to  receive  it.  Natural  faculties  are  imparted  at 
birth  ;  therefore,  if  without  them  in  infancy,  we  must 
be  without  them  the  remainder  of  our  days.  But 
faith,  being  a  Divine  gift,  we  may  obtain  at  the  age 
of  twenty,  forty,  or  sixty.  Faith  thus  presupposes 
a  supernatural  revelation,  the  supernatural  subjective 
demanding  a  supernatural  objective  on  which  to  la}- 
hold.     Abel  believed.     Believed  in  whom  ?     In  God. 

20 


306  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

But  what  did  he  know  about  God  to  believe  in  Him  ? 
Here  comes  in  the  revelation  the  Supreme  was 
pleased  to  make  of  the  purposes  of  His  grace  to  his 
parents  immediately  after  their  transgression — the 
promise  of  the  Seed  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head, 
the  institution  of  the  symbolical  rite  of  sacrifice,  the 
setting  up  of  an  organised  mode  of  worship  to  the 
east  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  in  front  of  the  Cheru- 
bim and  the  Flame  of  Fire.  That  is  the  Super- 
natural Revelation  which  again  brought  hope  to  man. 
I  designate  it  supernatural,  because  the  mind  working 
upon  nature  would  have  never  discovered  it.  It  is 
not  a  discovery  of  Adam,  but  a  revelation  of  God. 
In  a  few  verses  is  related  tl;e  pith  and  substance  of 
a  transaction  extending,  no  doubt,  over  several  hours, 
and  which,  if  reported  in  full,  in  its  attenuated  form, 
would  illumine  many  a  phrase  which  now  appears 
dark — dark  because  we  do  not  take  the  trouble  to 
spread  It  out,  that  w^e  may  see  the  inner  contents. 
Adam  and  Eve,  in  the  full  vigour  of  their  intellect, 
fresh  and  strong,  notwithstanding  the  stain  of  sin, 
pondered  deeply,  no  doubt,  over  the  gracious  revela- 
tion the  Almighty  had  vouchsafed  them.  They  con- 
versed much  about  it,  assisting  each  other  to  apprehend 
Its  full  significance ;  and  If  the  conjecture  of  some 
of  the  most  pious,  as  well  as  of  the  most  learned 
commentators,  be  right,  that  God  did  not  at  once 
withhold  His  theophanies,  but  that,  as  occasion 
required,  He  appeared  visibly  to  men,  in  accordance 
w^ith  the  Intimations  contained  in  this  fourth  chapter, 
and  solved  many  a  riddle  which  w^as  too  hard  for 
their  unaided  understanding,  the  resultant  intel- 
ligence was    not    inconsiderable.     What   they  them- 


CAIN    AND   ABEL  :    EVIL   AND  GOOD  307 

selves  had  received  and  understood,  they  naturally 
strove  to  impress  on  the  minds  of  their  children,  for 
on  the  faithful  transmission  and  the  strict  observ- 
ance of  these  truths  depended  the  present  and  future 
salvation  of  the  race.  What  more  reasonable  than 
that  they  should  tell  them  the  story  of  the  Fall, 
expatiate  on  the  promise  of  the  Seed  of  the  woman 
to  destroy  the  works  of  evil,  give  accurate  account 
of  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  its  symbolical  meaning, 
the  regulations  concerning  its  observance,  the  Divine 
instructions  to  them  concerning  the  meat-offering  and 
the  burnt-offering— the  two  offerings  whose  history 
is  clearly  traceable  from  Eden  down  to  Calvary? 
The  first  family  was  a  Church,  where  religious  in- 
struction was  imparted  and  religious  observances 
were  maintained.  Sufficient  evidence  is  the  public 
worship  of  the  two  brothers  at  an  appointed  time 
in  an  appointed  place.  Cain  listened,  understood, 
but  his  heart  gave  no  vital  response.  Abel  heard, 
drank  in  the  glad  tidings,  believed  in  God's  method 
of  salvation,  conformed  his  life  thereto,  and  his  faith 
was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  Cain,  says 
St.  John,  was  of  the  "wicked  one" — the  firstborn 
of  the  serpent's  brood  ;  Abel  trusted  in  the  Divine 
assurance  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of  good  over  evil — 
the  firstborn  of  the  woman's  Seed.  The  antithesis 
is  not  physical  or  intellectual,  but  ethical.  Instead 
of  moral  affinity,  there  is  spiritual  repulsion.  The 
conflict  of  the  ages  begins. 

II.  The  moral  difference  between  the  two  brothers 
manifested  itself  in  their  public  worship. 

The  Bible  does  not  concern  itself — nor  does  any  other 
book — so  much  about  the  secret  devotion  of  private 


308  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

individuals,  as  with  religion  in  its  public  character, 
as  it  affects  the  course  of  sacred  history.  Misappre- 
hension of  this  truth  has  blurred  the  sight  of  many 
expositors.  If  others  were  not  present  w^hen  Cain 
and  Abel  made  their  oblations,  who  would  be  alive 
to  tell  the  story?  The  fact  that  the  narrative  has 
come  down  to  us  is  proof  enough  that  there  were 
other  witnesses  of  the  scene  here  depicted.  At  the 
birth  of  Seth  Adam  was  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years  old  (chap.  v.  3) ;  the  historian  joins  the  birth 
of  Seth  to  the  martyrdom  of  Abel,  the  two  events 
doubtless  occurring  within  an  interval  of  a  few  years. 
This  enables  us  to  fix  approximately  the  date  of 
the  events  here  recorded — when  Adam  was  about 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years  old. 

"  In  process  of  time  it  came  to  pass  that  Cain 
brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto 
the  Lord.  And  Abel,  he  also  brought  of  the  firstlings 
of  the  flock,  and  of  the  fat  thereof."  "  By  faith  Abel 
offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than 
Cain."  Putting  these  texts  in  juxtaposition,  we 
gather  that  the  first  family  had  an  established  order 
of  worship,  an  order  enlarged,  developed,  and  care- 
fully reduced  to  writing  in  the  Hebrew  economy. 
Beautiful  is  it  to  think  that  between  the  Church 
before,  and  the  Church  after,  the  Flood,  there  was 
an  unbroken  continuity  in  the  method  of  worship. 
By  this  is  not  intended  that  in  elaborateness  and 
environments  great  differences  did  not  prevail,  but 
that  the  central  nucleus  was  under  every  dispensation 
identical.  If  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  system  is  repre- 
sented as  an  absolutely  new  beginning,  where  is  the 
much-vaunted  doctrine  of  development  ? 


CAIN  AND  ABEL:  EVIL  AND  GOOD     309 

The  first  family  had  evidently  a  stated  time  to 
appear  before  the  Lord.  The  two  brothers  met 
simultaneously  at  the  altar  to  offer  their  oblation  : 
"In  process  of  time";  in  the  margin,  "at  the  end 
of  days."  What  time  was  this  ?  The  majority  of 
commentators,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  learn,  favour 
the  view  that  the  words  refer  to  a  sacred  festival, 
probably  at  the  end  of  harvest,  wdien  all  Adam's 
family  were  wont  to  meet  to  render  thanksgiving  to 
God.  Throughout  the  antediluvian  and  patriarchal 
eras,  however,  I  detect  no  trace  of  special  festivals, 
and  am  therefore  reluctant  arbitrarily  to  insert  one 
here.  Consequently  the  view  that  the  reference  is 
to  the  end  of  the  days  of  the  week,  the  Sabbath  day, 
commends  itself  to  me. 

Already  the  "seventh  day  "  stands  forth  as  speci- 
ally blessed  and  hallowed.  In  this  chapter  Lamech 
speaks  of  "  seven  "  and  "  seventy  times  seven."  In 
the  story  of  the  Deluge,  Noah  reckons  time  by  the 
mysterious  number  seven.  All  this  constrains  us  to 
conclude  that  a  week  of  seven  days  is  an  institu- 
tion co-eval  with  humanity,  founded  really,  not 
artificially,  on  the  creation  week.  The  sun  divides 
time  into  years,  the  moon  into  months,  the  diurnal 
rotation  of  the  earth  on  its  axis  into  days  ;  the 
Sabbath  alone  divides  it  into  weeks. 

Not  many  years  ago,  not  only  avowed  sceptics,  but 
theologians  of  repute,  infected  by  the  spirit  which 
was  in  the  air,  denied  the  primeval  antiquity  of  the 
Sabbath.  Professor  Davidson,  w^hose  scholarship 
commands  universal  respect,  in  his  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament  devoted  several  pages  to  demon- 
strate  that  the    Sabbath  is    an    institution  no   older 


310  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

than  the  age  of  Moses.  Since  then,  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  monuments  have  spoken  ;  and  what 
do  they  disclose  ?  Calendar  tablets,  preserved  in  the 
royal  library  '^  \oSurbanipal,  the  Sardanapalus  of 
the  Greeks — co^jies  of  Accadian  inscriptions  dating 
back,  according  to  Mr.  George  Smith,  to  beyond 
2000  B.C.,  centuries  before  Abraham  left  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees — show  the  Sabbath  to  be  even  then 
a  venerable  public  institution.  The  very  word 
"  Sabbatu "  is  distinctly  visible  ;  the  seventh,  four- 
teenth, twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  days  of  the 
month  of  Elul  are  distinctly  styled  "  Sabbaths." 
Elsewhere  the  Sabbath  is  paraphrased  as  a  "day 
of  rest  for  the  heart,"  and  the  regulations  for  its 
observance  are  as  strict  and  rigorous  as  any  pre- 
scribed by  Jewish  Pharisaism.  Is  it  not  perfectly 
safe  to  assume  that  these  old  Accadians,  living  the 
centuries  immediately  following  the  Flood,  obtained 
the  Sabbath  as  a  precious  heritage,  from  the  world 
before  the  Flood  ?  And  is  it  not  remarkable  that 
every  new  discovery  in  archaeology  corroborates  the 
historical  veracity  of  the  Bible  ?  A  critic,  demurring 
to  Copernicus'  theory  of  the  solar  system,  said  :  "  If 
the  worlds  were  constructed  as  you  say,  Venus  would 
have  phases  like  the  moon  ;  she  has  none,  however  ; 
how  do  you  answer  that  ? "  The  illustrious  astro- 
nomer, possessing  his  soul  in  patience,  with  great 
reverence  replied,  "  I  have  no  answer  to  give  to  that  ; 
but  God  will  be  so  good  as  to  permit  that  an  answer 
to  this  difficulty  be  found."  Soon  after,  the  newly 
invented  telescope  was  directed  towards  Venus,  and, 
lo,  Venus  had  her  phases  like  the  moon.  Sceptical 
critics    through    the   centuries   raise    new   objections 


CAIN  AND  ABEL:  EVIL  AND  GOOD     31I 

against  the  Bible,  and  doubtless  will  continue  to  do 
so  ;  and,  because  the  answer  is  not  ready  when  the 
objection  is  first  urged,  they  raise  a  shout  of  triumph. 
But  God  is  always  "  so  good  "  as  in  time  to  furnish 
His  Church  with  an  answer.  Bclicvv  in  the  Bible, 
judging  from  past  experience,  await  the  further  dis- 
closures of  Oriental  archaeology  without  a  tremor. 

The   further    inference,   that   the    first    family  had 
a    fixed    place   whereat    to    offer    their   worship,    is 
incontrovertibly   legitimate.     Cain  did  not  repair  to 
one  altar  and  Abel  to  another,  but  the  two  met   at 
the  one  appointed  sanctuary — an  open-air  sanctuary 
may  be,  but  a  sanctuary  all  the  same.     Where  was 
that?      The    last    verse    of   the    preceding    chapter 
furnishes   the   answer — to   the   east   of    the    Garden 
of  Eden,   where    God   "placed"   the    Cherubim    and 
the    Flaming    Sword.      The   word    for    "  placed "    is 
the   root   of    the   term    Shekinah,   and   throws   con- 
siderable  light   on    the   narrative.     God    gave    there 
a   visible   sign    of   His   presence.     To   us,   with   our 
metaphysical    modes    of    thinking,    this   is   hard    of 
realisation.     Yet   if  we   believe    in  the   Bible  at  all, 
we   must  believe   in    the    Flame   of  Fire   called    the 
Shekinah,   a   supernatural    Radiance,   a    resplendent 
Cloud,  scattering  brilliance  all  around.     It  appeared 
unto  Abraham  like  a  burning  lamp  ;  to  the  Israelites 
in     the   wilderness     it    became    a    cloud    of    glory; 
in   the   Tabernacle    it   dwelt  a   bright    Flame,    with 
the    Eye    of    God    all    aglow    like    a    sun    in     the 
centre.     This  physical  token  of  the  Divine  Presence 
was    also    granted    the    Church    before    the    Flood. 
There  it  was,  to  the  east  of   Eden,   a   live    Flame, 
hovering  over  and  between  the  Cherubim— in  shape 


312  PRniEVAL   REVELATION 

like  a  curved  sword  or  scimitar,  coiling  and  whirling 
in  strange  convolutions. 

There  the  first  family  regularly  assembled  for 
public  worship,  at  length  a  large  congregation. 
Statisticians  have  put  down  the  population  of  the 
world  at  the  time  of  Abel's  death  at  some  tens 
of  thousands.  In  1852,  the  descendants  of  Jonathan 
Edwards,  the  illustrious  American  divine,  agreed  to 
celebrate  the  centenary  of  his  death.  How  many, 
think  you,  came  together  ?  Not  less  than  two 
thousand.  And  if  President  Edwards,  in  one  hundred 
years,  multiplied  into  two  thousand  people  able  to 
join  intelligently  in  the  festivities,  it  is  a  presump- 
tive proof  that  the  first  family  did  not  increase 
at  asmaller  ratio.  A  grand  spectacle  that !  Adam 
and  Eve,  Cain  and  Abel,  and  the  other  sons  and 
daughters,  meeting  every  Sabbath  morn  at  the 
appointed  hour,  to  the  east  of  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
in  front  of  the  Cherubim  and  the  Flame  of  Fire,  to 
adore  the  God  who  had  created  them,  against  whom 
they  had  rebelled,  but  who  had  graciously  promised 
to  forgive  them  on  their  penitence  and  faith  ! 

That  a  prescribed  mode  of  worship  was  already 
laid  down  and  recognised  the  story  unmistakably 
suggests.  Our  first  parents  observed  the  directions 
they  received  from  God,  offered  their  sacrifices,  and 
brought  up  the  children  to  follow  their  example  : 
"  At  the  end  of  days  it  came  to  pass  that  Cain 
brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering 
[mincha  I  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  Abel  brought  [a 
m.incha] ;  he  also  brought  of  the  firstlings  of  the 
flock,  and  of  the  fat  thereof"  That  rendering  is 
believed  to  convey  the  correct  meaning. 


CAIN   AND  ABEL:    EVIL  AND   GOOD  313 

The  mincJia  consisted  of  corn,  or  corn  niculc  into 
bread  (Lev.  ii.  i,  3,  12),  an  offering  due  from  man  as 
creature  to  God  as  Creator.  Of  course,  it  is  not 
meant  that  the  Levitical  law  was  then  estabHshcd, 
or  that  the  writer  of  Genesis  "  projected  "  that  law 
into  primeval  history  ;  but  that  this  law,  given  to 
and  observed  by  the  first  family,  was  the  foundation 
upon  which  the  later  legislation  was  built,  the  germ 
around  which  the  Hebrew  religion  entwined.  Abel 
as  well  as  Cain,  according  to  the  story,  presented 
this  meat-offering.  But  over  and  above  that,  Abel 
brought  a  burnt-offering,  thereby  confessing  his  sin- 
fulness, acknowledging  the  just  forfeiture  of  his  life, 
and  that  forgiveness  was  possible  only  through 
the  surrender  of  a  substitutionary  life.  That  these 
thoughts  were  expressed  in  theological  terms  is  not 
of  course  maintained ;  but  they  were  present  as 
unformulated  truths,  constituting  the  staple  of  his 
intellectual  and  spiritual  experience.  Abel  offered 
the  fruit  and  the  lamb :  hence  the  use  of  the  plural 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  designating  his 
"  gifts  "  ;  and  hence  also  his  offering  is  said  to  be 
"  fuller,"  completer,  than  that  of  his  brother. 

How  came  Cain  to  offer  only  of  the  fruit  of  the  field, 
whereas  Abel  offered  of  the  fruit  and  of  the  flock  ? 
Idle  is  it  to  say  that  each  offered  of  that  which  he 
had.  To  imagine  that  Cain,  an  agriculturalist,  had 
no  sheep  or  cattle  of  his  own,  is  absurd.  Abel  offered 
of  the  two  kinds  ;  so  could  Cain  if  he  wished.  The 
only  rational  explanation  is  that  Cain,  in  the  proud 
self-reliance  of  unbelief,  indulged  in  will-worship. 
As  the  serpent  persuaded  his  parents  to  disregard 
the    Divine    injunction    in    the    Garden,   so    he    now 


314  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

persuades  Cain  to  break  through  the  divinely 
established  method  of  drawing  near  to  God.  Un- 
belief issued  in  disobedience.  Cain  refused  to  submit 
to  God's  revealed  way  of  saving  the  world,  did  not 
see  the  reasonableness  of  salvation  by  blood,  for  he 
was  not  painfully  conscious  of  the  guiltiness  of  sin. 
He  went  in  for  fruits  and  flowers.  Culture,  poetry, 
music  were  the  great  things  of  life  in  his  estimation  ; 
and  it  is  a  singular  fact  that  the  arts  and  sciences, 
according  to  this  fourth  chapter,  had  their  rise,  as 
we  shall  presently  see,  among  his  descendants.  From 
the  first  outset,  the  spirit  of  culture  presents  itself  in 
antagonism  to  the  spirit  of  true  religion. 

Religion,  however,  is  not  hostile  to  culture,  but 
inclusive  of  it.  Abel,  whilst  not  despising  fruits  and 
flowers,  yea,  is  ready  to  give  science  and  art  their 
due  place  in  the  service  of  God,  feels  that  the  first 
great  need  of  life  is  reconciliation,  expiation,  pardon  ; 
and,  exercising  full  trust  in  the  Divine  mercy 
and  wisdom,  draws  nigh  to  God  in  the  divinely 
instituted  way.  The  unbelief  of  one  led  to  defiance, 
the  faith  of  the  other  to  loyal,  whole-hearted  obedi- 
ence. The  radical  antagonism  in  the  heart-principles 
manifested  itself  in  the  character  of  their  observance 
of  the  rites  of  public  worship.  Let  no  one  imagine 
that  Christian  believers  are  opposed  to  the  highest 
culture ;  on  the  other  hand,  we  welcome  and  en- 
courage it :  we  only  oppose  it  as  a  substitute  for 
religion.  As  the  embellishment  of  life  we  hail  it ; 
as  the  foundation  of  character  we  repudiate  it.  Life 
must  rest  on  piety,  and  piety  is  founded  in  sacrifice. 

III.  In  exact  conformity  with  their  personal  char- 
acter as  manifested  in  their  public  worship  was  God's 


CAIN   AND  ABEL:    EVIL  AND   GOOD  315 

treatment  of  them  in  return  :  "  God  had  respect 
unto  Abel  and  to  his  offering  ;  but  unto  Cain  and 
to  his  offering  He  had  not  respect."  "  Abel  received 
testimony  that  he  was  righteous,  because  God  bare 
witness  to  his  gifts." 

Picture  the  scene.  At  the  appointed  time,  Adam 
and  Eve,  Cain  and  Abel,  and  possibly  the  other 
children  and  grandchildren,  assemble  together  to 
worship,  to  the  east  of  Eden,  in  front  of  the  Cherubim 
and  the  Flame  of  Fire.  Cain  and  Abel  are  the 
officiating  priests,  as  heads  probably  of  their  respec- 
tive clans.  Cain  offers  of  the  fruit  of  the  field  ;  Abel 
places  on  the  altar,  in  addition  to  the  fruit  of  the 
field,  the  firstlings  of  his  flock  and  the  fat  thereof. 
The  congregation  looks  on  in  reverent  awe.  "  And 
the  Lord  looked  keenly  at  Abel  and  at  his  offering  ; 
but  at  Cain  and  his  offering  He  did  not  look."  What 
can  the  meaning  be?  Many  answers  have  been 
given,  of  which  two  deserve  special  mention. 

The  first  is  that,  as  God  continued  to  hold  inter- 
course with  men  by  visible  appearances  in  human 
form,  as  intimated  by  His  conversation  with  Cain 
in  the  succeeding  paragraph.  He  now  came  out  of 
the  invisible,  and  by  some  well-known  token,  per- 
haps in  human  language,  signified  His  acceptance  of 
the  one,  and  His  rejection  of  the  other.  But  the 
second  seems  to  me  most  in  accord  with  the  teaching 
of  Holy  Writ,  to  wit,  that  God  answered  by  fire. 
That  was  the  usual  way  in  later  times  in  which  God 
signified  His  satisfaction  :  "  And  there  came  a  fire 
out  from  before  the  Lord,  and  consumed  upon  the 
altar  the  burnt-offering  and  the  fat,  which,  when  all 
the  people  saw,  they  shouted  and  fell  on  their  faces  " 


3l6  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

(Lev.  ix.  24).  It  may  be  objected  that  that  was 
subsequent  to  the  promulgation  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
But  as  Moses  was  writing  for  Hebrews,  who  under- 
stood this  language  in  a  particular  sense,  it  is  not 
probable  he  would  use  it  in  a  different  sense  in  the 
first  narratives.  Accordingly,  Theodotion,  the  Greek 
translator  of  the  second  century,  translates  it  boldly 
eveiTvptaev — He  kindled  or  set  on  fire.  As  Cain  and 
Abel  and  the  congregation  were  waiting  in  rapt 
expectancy,  the  Flame  of  Fire  was  seen  to  move 
uneasily  about,  growing  redder  and  brighter,  till 
presently  a  flash  of  lightning  shot  forth  and  con- 
sumed the  offering  of  Abel,  whilst  that  of  Cain  was 
left  unsinged.  Abel  is  accepted,  Cain  rejected. 
There  and  then,  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation, 
"Abel  obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous,  God 
testifying  to  his  gifts."  The  exposition  that  the 
witness  Abel  received,  and  after  him  Enoch,  refers 
to  posthumous  testimony  by  Scriptural  writers, 
though  advanced  by  scholars  of  renown,  I  cannot 
but  consider  shallow  in  the  extreme.  The  Bible 
expressly  states  that  they  obtained  the  testimony  ; 
the  modern  exposition  that  we  receive  it,  not  they. 
What  comfort  would  that  be  to  them  ? 

I  prefer  the  view  that  Abel  himself,  by  the  Divine 
token  of  the  acceptance  of  his  sacrifice,  obtained 
witness  that  he  was  righteous,  an  inward  assurance 
that  he  was  reconciled  to  God,  the  truth  which  In 
Christian  theology  is  known  as  assurance  of  personal 
justification.  "  He  obtained  witness  that  he  was 
righteous."  That  he  was  holy  ?  No  ;  he  was  not 
holy  yet,  but  he  knew  he  was  righteous.  This  is 
the    mystery   of  the  way  of  salvation,  that   a   man 


CAIN    AND   ABEL:    EVIL  AND   GOOD  317 

may  be  justified  before  he  is  sanctified,  that  lie  may 
be  made  perfectly  righteous  before  he  is  made 
perfectly  holy.  Did  we  see  Abel  in  the  service  that 
Sabbath  morning,  peace  like  a  river  filled  his  soul, 
serene  contentment  sat  on  his  countenance,  un- 
speakable joy  beamed  out  of  his  eyes.  On  his  way 
home  there  was  greater  elasticity  in  his  step,  more 
lightness  in  his  tread,  hardly  did  the  daisies  bow 
their  heads  under  the  sole  of  his  feet — he  had 
obtained  assurance  that  the  malediction  of  sin  had 
passed  away  from  his  person  for  ever ! 

This  assurance  which  Abel  enjoyed  ought  to  be 
a  permanent  fact  in  the  experience  of  all  believers. 
This  should  not  be  an  exception,  but  the  rule  of  the 
religious  life — the  assurance  that,  having  believed, 
we  shall  not  fall  under  condemnation.  Do  Christians 
now  obtain  this  infallible  testimony  ?  I  do  not  ask 
if  we  are  perfectly  holy,  but  I  do  ask  if  we  are 
perfectly  righteous.  How  can  we  attain  this  assur- 
ance ?  In  the  same  way  as  Abel  obtained  it — by 
exercising  faith  in  God  through  sacrifice.  His 
offering  was  only  a  type,  but  he  had  a  large,  half- 
seeing,  half-blind  trust  that  the  true  sacrifice  would 
be  offered  ;  and  his  faith  laid  hold,  not  of  the  little 
lamb  from  his  own  flock,  but  on  another  Lamb,  a 
Lamb  which  God  had  reared  on  His  own  farm, 
"  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  " — 
slain,  not  only  in  God's,  but  also  in  man's  estimation. 
God,  by  accepting  his  gifts,  testified  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  his  person.  How  may  men  now  obtain 
assurance  of  salvation  ?  By  clearly  apprehending 
that  God  has  accepted  our  sacrifice,  even  Jesus 
Christ.     His  offering  of  Himself  received  the  Divine 


3t8  primeval  revelation 

approval  ;  the  fire  descended  and  devoured  the 
sacrifice.  Devoured  the  sacrifice  ?  Nay,  rather  the 
sacrifice  devoured  the  fire.  The  fire  consumed 
Abel's  sacrifice,  and  Abraham's,  and  Aaron's  ;  the 
sacrifices  disappeared,  but  the  fire  continued  to  burn 
on  and  on  and  on.  But  when  it  fell  on  Calvary, 
instead  of  the  fire  consuming  the  sacrifice,  the 
sacrifice  extinguished  the  fire.  I  know  of  no  one 
who  has  given  a  more  striking  expression  to  this 
truth  than  a  farm  labourer  in  Flintshire.  When 
one  of  his  young  mistresses  was  dying  of  consump- 
tion, the  mother  asked  the  servant  to  administer 
spiritual  consolation  to  her  in  her  great  depression. 
Retiring  to  the  field,  placing  his  back  against  an 
oak,  the  godly  servant  put  together  a  few  lines  of 
poetry,  and  repeated  them  to  the  evident  comfort  of 
the  young  saint.     I  venture  to  append  a  translation  : 

The  sky  above  my  head 

Was  turned  to  darkest  night, 
Nor  sun  nor  moon  nor  stars 
Could  shed  a  ray  of  light ; 
And  Justice  stern,  'mid  thunders  loud, 
Was  shooting  lightnings  from  the  cloud. 

My  guilty  conscience  woke, 

It  filled  my  soul  with  dread ; 
Its  voice  I'll  ne'er  forget 

Whilst  on  the  earth  I  tread  ; 
In  anguish  sore  away  I  fled, 
Not  knowing  where  to  hide  my  head. 

I  turned  me  to  the  law 

In  hope  there  rest  to  find, 
I  asked  in  accents  low 

For  calm  and  peace  of  mind ; 


CAIN    AND  ABEL:    EVIL   AND  GOOD  319 

Escape,  said  she,  away— oh  !  flee 
For  very  life  to  Calvary. 

'Mid  thunders  loud  and  lon^- 
With  all  my  might  I  sped  ; 
Around  me  lightnings  played 
Like  soldiers  scarlet-red  ; 
I  reached  the  Mount,  both  faint  and  sad, 
And  saw  the  Saviour  crimson-clad. 

Although  my  flesh  be  grass, 

And  all  my  bones  but  clay, 
'Mid  lightnings  red  I  sing- 
God  washed  my  sins  away  ; 
The  Rock  upholds  me  in  the  flood, 
The  lightnings  die  in  Jesu's  blood ! 

On  Cain,  however,  the  service  had  a  contrary  effect  : 
"Cain  was  very  wroth,  and  his  countenance  fell." 
When  anger  is  nursed  in  the  breast,  it  cannot  be 
concealed  in  the  face ;  the  scowl  and  darkened 
visage  indicate  the  inward  tumult.  Then  follows 
the  interview  between  Jehovah  and  Cain.  How 
are  we  to  understand  it?  As  an  embodiment  in 
language  of  the  conflicting  thoughts  which  were 
contending  for  the  mastery  in  the  heart  of  the  elder 
brother  ?  Scarcely,  for  the  train  and  the  quality  of 
the  thoughts  are  such  as  would  not  rise  spontane- 
ously in  the  breast  of  an  angry  man.  Hence  the 
inference  that  God,  appearing  to  Cain,  expostulated 
kindly,  patiently  with  him.  Marvellous  the  solici- 
tude of  God  respecting  the  first  family!  Wonder- 
ful the  condescension  which  prompted  Him  to  talk 
to  them  as  a  man  talketh  to  a  friend,  striving  to 
guide  their  feet  in  the  paths  of  peace.  "  Jehovah 
said  unto  Cain,  Why  art  thou  wroth,  and  why  is  thy 


320  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

countenance  fallen  ?  If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou 
not  be  accepted  or  have  the  excellency  ?  and  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door.  And  unto  thee 
shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  him." 
So  archaic  and  elliptical  is  this  language  that 
commentators  are  driven  hard  to  fix  on  the  right 
meaning. 

Three  interpretations  have  been  advanced  and  ably 
supported.  The  first  is  that  Cain,  being  the  elder, 
had  the  right  of  primogeniture,  a  right  undefined, 
but  evidently  founded  on  a  law  of  nature.  Yet 
Abel,  by  his  loving,  placid  disposition,  had  probably 
supplanted  him  in  the  affections  of  his  parents.  Now 
it  was  made  clear  that  Abel  was  also  the  favourite 
of  Heaven.  "  And  Cain  was  very  wroth,  and  his 
countenance  fell."  The  Creator  thereupon,  in  His 
infinite  benignity,  condescended  to  reason  with  this 
moody,  wayward  man:  Why  art  thou  wroth?  If 
thou  doest  well,  if  thou  believest  the  revelation  1 
have  made  of  a  promised  Deliverer,  and  in  attestation 
of  thy  faith  bringest  the  prescribed  offerings,  thou 
also  shalt  be  accepted  of  Me,  and  thou  shalt  have  the 
excellency,  the  pre-eminence  over  thy  brother,  thou 
shalt  enjoy  the  rights  of  primogeniture,  and  as  the  first- 
born thou  shalt  rule  over  him.  But  that  God  should 
thus  argue  about  birthrights  does  not  seem  to  me 
worthy  of  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion,  or  befitting 
the  dignity  of  the  Speaker. 

The  second  is  an  advance  on  the  first,  and  concerns 
itself  about  moral  character,  not  natural  rights  :  Why 
art  thou  wroth,  and  why  is  thy  countenance  fallen  ? 
Do  well,  and  the  consciousness  of  uprightness  in  the 
inward    parts   will    illumine    thy   countenance,   drive 


CaIn  Anid  abel:  evil  and  good         32! 

away  the  dark  frown,  and  cause  thee  to  look  up 
joyously.  But  if  thou  docst  not  well,  if  thou  trans- 
gressest,  and  yet  declinest  to  bring  a  sacrifice  of  blood 
to  expiate  thy  guilt  according  to  the  revelation  I 
have  made  of  My  will,  sin  lieth  at  the  door— at  thy 
door,  not  Mine;  thou  alone  art  responsible  for  thy 
rejection.  Sin  like  a  coiled  serpent  croucheth  at  the 
door  of  thy  heart,  craving  for  mastery  over  thee  ; 
but  beware  that  thou  yieldest  not  to  the  temptation 
—instead  of  sin  ruling  over  thee,  rule  thou  over  it. 
Thus  God  mercifully  warns  Cain  to  nip  his  envy  in 
the  bud,  for,  if  cherished,  it  would  assuredly  obtain 
dominion  over  him  ;  and  once  envy,  cruel  as  the 
grave,  would  get  the  rulership,  it  might  drive  him  to 
murder  and  all  atrocities.  How  His  Spirit  wrestled 
with  this  moody,  choleric  man  to  check  him  in  his 
downward  career  ! 

The  third  interpretation,  whilst  not  excluding  the 
second,  concerns  itself  about  the  acceptance  by  Cain 
of  the  revealed  way  of  salvation.  The  word  em- 
ployed for  sin  ichattath)  is  the  technical  term  in  the 
Pentateuch  for  sin-offering  :  "  If  thou  doest  not  well 
a  sin-offering  lieth  at  the  door  or  gate  of  Paradise, 
where  are  the  Cherubim  and  the  Flame  of  Fire  ; 
submit  to  My  revealed  will,  and  offer  thy  sin-offering, 
and  thou  wilt  obtain  My  approval."  Either  of  these 
interpretations  yields  a  good  sense  ;  but  the  last 
appears  to  me  to  coalesce  best  with  the  drift  and 
current  of  Scriptural  theology,  for  it  must  be  always 
borne  in  mind  that  pubHc  worship,  not  private 
religion,  is  the  theme  of  the  Old  Testament — public 
worship,  to  be  sure,  as  an  infallible  index  of  private 
morality. 

21 


322  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

But  Cain  would  not  be  mollified  :  "  And  Cain 
talked  with  Abel  his  brother.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  they  were  in  the  field,  that  Cain  rose  up  against 
Abel  his  brother,  and  slew  him."  How  horrible! 
Cain,  the  firstborn  child  of  humanity,  a  fratricide! 
How  awfully  must  have  burnt  his  ire  !  How  un- 
governable must  have  been  his  passion  !  He  imbued 
his  hands  in  his  own  brother's  blood.  How  came  he 
to  do  it  ?  St.  John  answers  :  "  He  was  of  the  wicked 
one."  The  devil  wrought  ruin  and  disaster  to  our 
first  parents  in  the  Garden  ;  he  is  now  working  havoc 
among  their  children.  Tell  me  that  there  is  no 
devil,  that  human  nature  is  alone  responsible  for 
all  the  atrocious  deeds  and  dark  villainies  of  his- 
tory, and  I  utterly  despair  of  its  salvation.  But 
tell  me  that  there  is  a  devil  behind,  a  fiendish  spirit 
as  the  prime  instigator  of  the  horrors  and  massacres, 
and  I  feel  a  load  lifted  from  my  heart— humanity 
is  not  quite  so  bad  as  I  thought,  I  have  yet  hope 
of  its  ultimate  reclamation  by  the  help  of  Grace 
Divine. 

Jewish  tradition  says  that  Cain,  seeing  a  crow, 
having  killed  another,  dig  a  hole  in  the  ground  to 
bury  its  victim,  took  the  hint,  excavated  a  grave — 
the  first  human  grave  opened  on  the  earth — and 
interred  the  bloody  corse  of  his  brother,  in  the  hope 
of  concealing  his  own  more  gory  sin  !  As  if  Cain 
had  not  as  much  brain  as  a  rook  I  Having  thus 
disposed  of  his  brother,  he  directed  his  steps  home- 
ward, and,  passing  on  his  way  one  of  the  four 
rivers  which  watered  Eden,  bathed  in  its  cooling 
waters,  laved  his  throbbing  temples,  washed  away 
the  bloodstains  from  off  his  hands.     But  nay,  human 


CAIN    AND   ABEL:    EVIL   AND   GOOD  323 

blood  will  not  wash.     The  stain  remains,  says  folk- 
lore, on  the  oaken  floor  where  it  fell. 

Will  all  great  Neptune's  ocean  wash  this  blood 
Clean  from  my  hand  ?     No  ;  this  my  hand  will  rather 
The  multitudinous  seas  incarnadine, 
Making  the  green  one  red.  ^ 

To  that  primeval  home  the  shades  of  night  came, 
but  no  Abel.  Her  maternal  instincts  fearing  evil 
had  befallen  her  favoured  son,  Eve  did  not  rest. 
Early  the  following  morning  the  other  sons  and 
daughters  were  organised  into  search-parties ;  but 
their  explorations  were  without  success.  Inde- 
scribable was  the  agony  and  bewilderment  in  that 
first  home  at  the  first  break  in  the  family  circle. 

The  Sabbath  came  round  again,  and  even  the 
mysterious  disappearance  of  Abel  must  not  interrupt 
the  rites  of  religion.  So  the  large  family  assembled 
as  usual  to  the  east  of  Eden,  in  front  of  the  Cherubim 
and  the  Flame  of  Fire.  As  the  service  was  pro- 
ceeding, God  out  of  the  Flame  addressed  Cain, 
"  Where  is  Abel  thy  brother  ? "  This  colloquy  was 
not  in  private,  else  there  would  have  been  none  to 
report  it.  "  And  Cain  said,  I  know  not ;  am  I  my 
brother's  keeper  ?  "  Do  you  not  hear  the  serpent's 
hiss?  "And  God  said.  What  hast  thou  done? 
The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  cricth  unto  Me 
from  the  ground."  The  murder  is  out,  the  criminal 
is  detected.  Cain,  quaking  in  every  limb,  cries 
out  in  anguish  of  soul,  "  My  sin  is  greater  than  can 
be  forgiven !  My  punishment  is  greater  than  I 
can  bear  !     Behold,  Thou  hast  driven   me  out   from 

^  Macbelhy  Act  ii.,  scene  2. 


324  Primeval  revelation 

the  face  of  the  earth,  and  from  Thy  face  I  shall 
be  hid  ;  and  I  shall  be  a  fugitive  and  a  vagabond 
in  the  earth  ;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
every  one  that  findeth  me  shall  slay  me."  "  And 
Jehovah  said  unto  Cain,  Therefore  whosoever 
slayeth  Cain,  vengeance  shall  be  taken  on  him 
sevenfold.  And  Jehovah  set  a  mark  upon  Cain, 
lest  any  finding  him  should  kill  him."  What  this 
mark  was  has  much  exercised  the  ingenuity  of 
commentators.  Some  suppose  it  was  a  mark  visible 
to  Cain,  but  invisible  to  others.  Were  that  the 
case,  what  was  the  good  of  it  ?  I  feel,  therefore, 
constrained  to  adopt  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a 
mark,  as  of  the  beast,  on  his  forehead  or  countenance 
— a  mark  which  loudly  proclaimed  to  all  who  saw 
him  that  he  was  accursed  of  God  ;  but  because  he 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Almighty,  men  dared  not 
take  vengeance  into  their  own. 

Thereupon  "  he  went  out  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord " — not  from  the  Lord,  but  from  His 
Presence,  that  Flame  of  Fire  which  turned  every 
way.  Away  he  travelled  from  the  Flame  which 
had  beheld  his  murder  and  discovered  his  evil  deed. 
Away,  away  into  the  land  of  Nod,  accompanied 
by  his  faithful  wife  and  children,  he  wandered, 
with  dishevelled  hair  and  haggard  looks,  the  crime 
of  murder  weighing  heavily  on  his  conscience. 
"Hark  !  the  voice  !  the  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood 
crying  unto  Me  from  the  ground."  To  this  deep^ 
never-dying  truth  vEschylus  gives  a  terrible,  appalling 
expression  in  one  of  his  plays  :  the  Furies  relentlessly 
pursue  the  murderer,  and  are  not  satisfied  till  they 
quench  their  thirst  in  his  blood. 


CAIN    AND   ABEL  :    EVIL   AND   GOOD  325 

There  is  a  law  that  blood,  once  poured  on  earth 
By  murderous  hands,  demands  that  other  blood 
Be  shed  in  retribution.     From  the  slain 
Erinnys  calls  aloud  for  vengeance  still, 
Till  death  in  justice  meet  be  paid  for  death. 

But  from  this  terrific  savageness,  the  relentless  fury 
of  Greek  sentiment,  Holy  Writ  is  free.  What  is 
revenge  among  the  Greeks  is  only  vengeance  among 
the  Hebrews — a  distinction  which  redounds  greatly 
to  the  credit  of  the  people  of  revelation. 

"  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  bloods  [plural]  cries 
unto  Me  from  the  ground."  Cain  had  inflicted  on 
his  brother  more  wounds  than  one  ;  in  his  anger 
he  had  hacked  away  at  the  body  ;  and  from  each 
gash  the  trickling  blood  cried  to  heaven  for 
vengeance.  Oh,  the  eloquence  of  blood !  Mark 
Antony,  in  his  oration  over  the  dead  Caesar,  begins 
by  saying  that  the  "  wounds  of  Caesar  like  dumb 
mouths  did  ope  their  ruby  lips  to  beg  the  voice 
and  utterance  of  his  tongue  "  ;  but  finishes  by  asking 
the  wounds  to  speak  for  him  :  "  I  show  you  sweet 
Caesar's  wounds,  poor,  poor  dumb  mouths,  and  bid  them 
speak  for  me."  Then  he  showed  the  crowd  Ca,'sar's 
vesture  punctured  by  the  traitors'  daggers,  and 
that  moved  them  to  pity.  He  afterwards  showed 
them  Caesar's  body,  all  marred  and  gashed,  and  the 
sight  of  blood  drove  them  to  rise  and  mutiny.  But 
why  all  this  tumult  and  commotion?  It  is  blood 
that  is  speaking.  "  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood 
crieth  unto  Me  from  the  ground.  Cursed  therefore 
art  thou  from  the  face  of  the  earth."  We,  however, 
know  of  another  blood— "the  blood  of  sprinkling, 
which   speaketh   better   things   than   that   of  Abel." 


326  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Abel's  blood  cried  that  justice  might  prevail  on  the 
earth  ;  Christ's  blood  cries  that  mercy  may  triumph 
over  judgment.  The  blood  of  Abel  besought 
vengeance  on  the  murderer ;  the  blood  of  Christ 
beseeches  pardon,  saying,  "  Father,  forgive  them  ; 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 


CHAPTER   XIII 

ANTEDILUVIANS:   DEVELOPMENT  OF   EVIL 

FROM  Adam  down  to  the  Deluge  human  life 
extended  from  eight  hundred  to  one  thousand 
years.  The  accuracy  of  these  figures  has  often  been 
.challenged.  Many  modifications,  based  principally 
on  the  supposed  variable  signification  of  the  term 
"year,"  have  been  offered,  but  none  have  proved 
satisfactory.  The  Genesis  account  is  moreover  cor- 
roborated by  the  traditions  of  other  nations,  which 
recall  a  golden  age  when  men  enjoyed  lives  of 
extraordinary  length.  This  longevity  the  Hebrew 
prophets  in  after-times  converted  into  a  metaphor, 
with  which  to  paint  the  future  felicity  and  prosperity 
of  Messiah's  reign. 

I  therefore  provisionally  accept  these  brief  memoirs 
as  true  in  fact  and  figure.  What  were  the  causes  at 
work  to  secure  for  the  ancients  such  long  immunity 
from  death  baffles  inquiry.  Sufficient  reason  cannot 
be  found  in  the  nature  of  man  or  his  environments^ 
or  in  both  together.  The  reason  is  not  in  Nature,  but 
in  Providence  ;  for  longevity  was  favourable  to  the 
transmission  of  truth,  when  book-making  was  not 
a  trade,     Methuselah   was   a   contemporary  for   two 

327 


328  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

hundred  and  fifty  years  with  Adam  ;  and,  dweUing 
in  the  same  region,  doubtless  saw  him,  and  heard 
probably  from  his  lips  the  story  of  Eden  and  the 
Fall.  Methuselah  would  hand  it  down  carefully  to 
his  grandson  Noah,  who  again  would  repeat  it  to  the 
generations  succeeding  the  Flood.  The  tradition 
could  thus  be  preserved  in  comparative  purity  down 
to  the  days  of  Moses.  Longevity  was  thus  favour- 
able to  the  transmission  of  historic  truth  and  highly 
advantageous  to  the  advancement  of  learning  and 
civilisation ;  but  when  writing  became  prevalent 
no  special  reason  existed  for  the  prolongation  of 
life. 

But  if  long  life  favoured  the  preservation  of  true 
religion,  it  also  helped  forward  the  propagation  of 
vice.  The  ages  of  the  descendants  of  Cain  are  not 
given,  for,  from  a  redemption  point  of  view,  they 
were  of  no  consequence  ;  but  doubtless  they  ran 
parallel  with  those  of  the  pious  line  of  Seth.  Just 
imagine  the  notorious  filibusters  of  the  Norman 
Conquest  living  in  the  Vale  of  Glamorgan,  where 
so  many  of  them  settled,  down  to  the  present  day 
— eight  hundred  years ;  how  they  would  oppress 
men,  corrupt  society,  and  convert  the  land  into  a 
menagerie.  That,  however,  was  the  case  before  the 
Flood.  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was 
great  in  the  earth."  In  mercy  to  men  themselves 
God  gradually  shortened  their  lives.  Better  for 
hardened  criminals  to  die  at  eighty  than  live  to  eight 
hundred.  When  they  lived  long,  what  a  bedlam 
men  made  of  the  world ! 

But  all  that  is  myth,  remark  the  critics.  Let 
us  then   examine   it  more    narrowly.     According   to 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT   OF   EVIL     329 

Genesis,  the  number  of  generations  from  the  Creation 
to  the  Flood  is  Ten,  including  that  of  Noah.  "  Now 
it  is  a  significant  fact,"  writes  Mr.  Urquhart,  "  that  this 
very  number  ten  reappears  with  most  remarkable 
persistency  in  the  ancient  traditions  of  the  various 
races.  The  Egyptians  believed  that  ten  deities 
reigned  before  man.  The  Sybelline  books  speak  of 
ten  ages  which  elapsed  between  the  Creation  and  the 
Deluge.  The  Iranians  looked  back  to  their  ten 
Peischaddiit,  or  monarchs,  'the  men  of  the  ancient 
law,'  who  drank  of  the  pure  homa,  the  drink  of  the 
immortals,  and  who  watched  over  holiness.  The 
Hindoos  speak  of  the  nine  Brahinidikas,  who  with 
Brahma,  their  maker,  are  called  the  ten  Pitris,  or 
fathers.  The  Germans  and  the  Scandinavians  tell 
of  the  ten  ancestors  of  Odin  ;  the  Chinese  of  the 
ten  Emperors,  who  shared  the  Divine  nature,  and 
reigned  before  the  dawn  of  historic  times  ;  the  Arabs 
of  the  ten  kings  of  the  Adites,  primitive  inhabitants 
of  the  Peninsula  embraced  between  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Persian  Gulf.  The  Phoenician  historian, 
Sacchoniathon,  also  gives  ten  generations  of  Primitive 
Patriarchs."  ^ 

"  We  find  ourselves,"  says  Lenormant,  "  confronted 
with  an  imposing  array  of  concordant  testimony, 
gathered  in  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  which 
leaves  no  room  for  doubt  in  regard  to  the  common 
ground  of  the  ancient  narratives,  touching  the  prin- 
cipal days  of  man  among  all  the  great  cilivised 
nations  of  the  old  world.  The  agreement  as  to  the 
number   of  antediluvian    patriarchs,   with    the    Bible 

^  Rev.  John  Urquhart,  The  Bible  anil  Modern  Discoveries ^ 
p.  158, 


330  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Statement,  in  the  traditions  of  nations— most  diverse 
one  from  another — is  manifested  in  a  striking  way. 
They  are  ten  in  the  story  of  Genesis,  and  with  a 
strange  persistence  this  number  ten  is  reproduced  in 
the  legends  of  a  very  great  number  of  nations,  when 
dcahng  with  their  primitive  ancestors,  yet  shrouded 
in  the  midst  of  fable.  To  whatever  epoch  they  trace 
back  these  ancestors,  whether  before  or  after  the 
Deluge,  whether  the  mythic  or  historic  side  pre- 
dominate in  their  physiognomy,  they  invariably  offer 
this  sacramental  number  ten."  ^ 

How  came  all  these  nations  to  fix  on  Ten  as  the 
number  of  the  Primitive  Patriarchs?  To  say  that 
the  stories  are  myths  leaves  the  problem  unsolved. 
The  question  is,  How  came  all  the  myths  to  fix  on 
the  same  number,  and  that  number  correspondent 
to  the  number  in  Genesis  ?  Does  not  this  singular 
agreement  point  to  the  one  central  historic  fact,  out 
of  which  all  the  myths  sprang,  that  the  Mosaic  record 
is  correct  in  its  presentation  of  the  Ten  antediluvian 
Patriarchs  ?  The  Genesis  record  explains  the  myths, 
whereas,  on  any  other  hypothesis,  they  remain  utterly 
inexplicable. 

I.  Let  us  direct  our  attention  to  the  Cainite 
family. 

Departing  from  the  Eden  district,  where  God 
vouchsafed  visible  symbols  of  His  presence,  accom- 
panied by  his  family,  Cain  migrated  eastward  to 
unexplored  and  uninhabited  regions,  hoping  to 
escape  the  bitter  memories  of  his  horrid  deed,  and 
to  earn    a   scanty  living   from    the    doubly  accursed 

^  The  Beginnings  of  History^  pp.  218,  219. 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT  OF   EVIL     331 

soil.     But  wherever  he  roamed,  conscience  gave  him 
no  peace — 

With  crimson  clouds  before  his  eyes, 
And  flames  about  his  brain, 

For  blood  had  left  upon  his  soul 
Its  everlasting  stain.' 

Gradually  the  burden  grew  lighter.  The  fear  of 
imminent  judgment  having  been  allayed,  the  remem- 
brance of  the  murder  grew  fainter,  the  conscience 
waxed  harder,  and  Cain  devoted  himself  to  the 
steady,  obdurate  pursuit  of  his  worldly  avocation. 
The  years  passed.  He  never  once  presented  him- 
self in  the  ancestral  sanctuary.  His  family,  fast 
increasing,  developed  into  a  powerful  clan  ;  and 
Cain  settled  down  into  stolid  indifference  to  all 
spiritual  interests.  Of  indomitable  energy  and  end- 
less resources,  battling  valiantly  against  his  doom, 
he  subjugated  the  forces  of  nature,  and  established 
a  thriving  community. 

In  reviewing  briefly  the  progress  made  in  ante- 
diluvian times,  be  it  remembered  that  men  lived  on  the 
earth  nearly  one  thousand  years,  and  that  therefore 
they  had  powerful  incentives  to  hard  and  continuous 
work  ;  and  that,  having  made  an  invention,  they 
lived  long  enough  to  supervise  and  direct  all  improve- 
ments, the  experience  of  centuries  of  personal  study 
and  observation  being  at  their  command.  Suppose 
Faraday,  Newton,  and  Watt  were  allowed  one 
thousand  years  to  continue  their  experiments  and 
calculations,  what  rapid  progress,  what  long  strides, 
science  would  make!     This  advantage  the  thinkers 

1  Thomas  Hood,  Eugene  Aram, 


332  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

of  the  old  world  abundantly  enjoyed.     Be  it  further 
remembered  that  all  spoke  one  language,  so  that  the 
exchange  of  ideas  was  easy,  and   some  clue  will  be, 
afforded  to  the  rapid  advance  of  the  arts  and  sciences 
in  their  times. 

The  Cainite  family  are  credited  in  the  fourth 
chapter  of  Genesis  with  the  honour  of  being  the 
initiators  of  civilisation,  in  its  material  aspect.  By 
civilisation  in  its  profoundest  sense  is  understood 
a  condition  of  existence  opposed  to  savagery  ;  not 
necessarily  acquaintance  with  and  deftness  in  me- 
chanical crafts,  but  calm,  quiet  thoughtfulness,  self- 
control,  consciousness  of  obligation  to  a  higher  law, 
and  an  honest  endeavour  to  discharge  social  duties. 
Were  I  transferred  to  the  richest  auriferous  region 
in  the  world,  I  would  feel  myself  utterly  helpless. 
Having  never  been  a  miner,  I  know  not  the  best  way 
of  blasting  rocks.  Having  never  been  a  gold-digger, 
I  am  ignorant  of  the  best  method  of  extracting  gold 
from  the  quartz.  Yet  were  I  pronounced  less 
civilised  than  the  navvies  of  the  Australian  bush,  I 
should  have  just  cause  for  resentment.  Consider 
civilisation  on  its  moral  side,  and  to  the  posterity 
of  Seth,  doubtless,  belonged  the  superiority.  But  in 
efforts  to  subdue  nature,  to  adorn  temporal  existence, 
the  Bible,  with  strict  impartiality,  ascribes  the  pre- 
cedence to  the  godless  descendants  of  Cain.  Volun- 
tarily depriving  themselves  of  cult,  they  devoted 
themselves  to  culture.  Expecting  no  blessing  from 
heaven,  they  extracted  all  they  could  from  the  earth. 

Assisted  by  his  children,  Cain  "  began  to  build  a 
city,  and  called  the  name  of  the  city  after  the  name 
of  his   son,  Enoch."     Here  we   behold    the  birth  of 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT  OF    EVIL     333 

architecture.  Men,  doubtless,  dwelt  in  houses  before  ; 
but  this  is  the  first  sustained  effort  to  construct  a 
town  and  institute  municipal  government.  The 
attempt  may  not  have  resulted  in  the  erection  of 
palatial  residences  ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no 
reason  for  the  description  often  given  that  it  was 
only  an  aggregation  of  wigwams,  like  African  villages, 
protected  by  wooden  palisades  or  a  hedge  of  prickly 
hawthorns.  If  primitive  men  were  only  emerging 
from  barbarism,  this  representation  of  their  first  essay 
at  architecture  might  be  true.  But  the  assumption 
of  the  Bible  all  along  is,  that  men  began  in  a  state 
of  civilisation,  so  far  as  the  mental  and  moral 
faculties  are  concerned.  Though  a  wicked  man, 
Cain  was  richly  dowered  intellectually ;  and  the 
Edenic  civilisation  he  had  received  from  his  parents, 
he  imparted  to  his  descendants,  improved  and 
adapted  to  their  new  requirements. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  Cainite 
city  was  more  than  an  assemblage  of  ill-constructed 
hovels,  that  here  we  have  an  able,  long-sustained 
effort  to  construct  a  regular  town  :  not  with  the  view, 
as  some  commentators  allege,  of  converting  it  into  a 
fortification,  to  enable  Cain  to  resist  successfully  the 
onsets  of  his  enemies,  the  fear  of  personal  violence 
for  the  murder  of  his  brother  having  long  ago 
vanished  ;  but  rather  to  improve  the  material  con- 
ditions of  life,  to  multiply  its  comforts  by  association, 
whilst  not  wholly  oblivious  of  the  subordinate  object 
of  warding  off  possible  attacks  by  hostile  tribes. 
That  the  structures  were  simple  in  their  plan,  and 
antique  in  their  appearance,  cannot  be  controverted; 
but  as  the  builders  lived  long,  experience  soon  came 


334  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

to  their  aid.  Mechanical  skill  must  have  arrived  at 
a  comparatively  advanced  stage  to  enable  Noah  to 
build  the  ark  of  gopher  wood.  Take  any  chance 
company  of  ministers  or  scholars,  brought  up  in  an 
enlightened  country,  and  not  totally  unobservant  of 
the  ways  of  men  ;  yet  it  may  be  doubted  if  all  of 
them  combined  can  unravel  the  specifications  of  the 
ark  and  construct  a  ship  in  accordance  therewith. 
Cain  "  began  "  to  build  ;  the  work  progressed  through 
the  centuries  ;  the  town  became  recognised  as  the 
capital  of  the  district,  having  probably  for  its 
governor  its  founder  and  the  natural  head  of  the 
tribe.  Underneath  the  ancient  city  of  Nipur,  in 
Southern  Babylonia,  have  been  discovered  the  re- 
mains of  a  more  ancient  city  still,  covered  with  a 
huge  deposit  of  mud  and  sand,  which,  it  is  averred, 
could  have  proceeded  neither  from  the  Euphrates 
nor  the  Tigris,  and  which  it  is  suspected  is  ante- 
diluvian. Further  excavations  may  give  us  clearer 
ideas  of  the  architecture,  and  the  civilisation  gener- 
ally, of  the  world  before  the  Flood. 

In  Genesis  the  murder  of  Abel  and  the  building 
of  the  city  named  Enoch  are  closely  connected,  the 
former  being  the  occasion  of  the  latter.  Lenormant, 
with  vast  erudition,  has  shown  that,  in  the  mytho- 
logies of  the  world,  the  institution  of  famous  cities  is 
always  associated  with  murder.  His  views  are  well 
summarised  by  Mr.  Urquhart  in  the  following 
extract :  "  The  walls  of  the  city,"  of  which  Sargon 
was  the  builder,  "were,  so  to  say,  laid  in  blood. 
These  indications  are  explained  and  emphasised  by 
the  traditions  of  all  nations.  The  legend  meets  us 
in    the   story   of  Romulus   and    Remus.      The   two 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT  OF   EVlL     335 

brothers  quarrelled  because  of  the  oinens  granted  by 
the  gods  " — a  reminder  of  the  token  by  which  God 
showed  His  acceptance  of  Abel  but  His  rejection  of 
Cain.  "  The  birds  appeared  first  to  Remus,  and  he 
claimed  that  his  site  should  be  chosen  for  the  city. 
But  Romulus  afterwards  had  an  omen,  which  he 
contended  showed  that  his  site  was  approved.  They 
had  a  subsequent  meeting,  as  Romulus  was  building, 
and  then  the  pent-up  wrath  flamed  out.  Remus 
was  slain,  and  Romulus  built  his  city  with  hands 
stained  with  his  brother's  blood.  The  story  meets  us 
everywhere.  Each  famous  city,  of  the  origin  of  which 
the  legends  speak,  has  human  blood  poured  into  its 
trenches.  Murder  and  city-building  are  bound  to- 
gether. The  city-builder  is  stained  with  this  blackest 
of  crimes.  The  stones  of  his  city  walls  are  laid  in  the 
blood  of  one  whose  life  ought  to  have  been  to  him 
among  the  most  sacred  which  the  earth  contained. 
There  is  no  apparent  connection  between  city- 
building  and  brother-slaying.  What,  then,  has  made 
the  nations  link  these  so  closely  together  ?  The 
Scripture  supplies  an  explanation,  which  brings  us 
out  of  myth  into  the  sobriety  and  the  light  of  history. 
Put  that  narrative  aside,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
whole  world's  literature  to  make  known  to  us  what 
all  those  signs  and  tales  are  striving  to  say.  Accept 
it  as  history,  and  the  mystery  is  solved." 

A  brief  account  follows  of  the  origination  of  other 
arts.  Special  attention  is  directed  to  the  family  of 
Lamech,  for  to  the  genius  characteristic  of  his  family 
are  attributed  several  inventions  of  importance. 
"  And  Adah  bare  Jabal :  he  was  the  father  of  such  as 
dwell  in  tents  and  of  such   as  have  cattle."      Jabal 


336  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

found  it  to  his  advantage  to  move  his  cattle  from 
place  to  place,  following  the  pasturage,  and  for 
convenience,  abandoning  towns,  he  dwelt  in  tents. 
He  was  the  initiator  of  the  nomadic  life — a  statement 
which  goes  to  prove  that  at  the  first  men  lived  in 
communities.  The  mention  of  tents  suggests  another 
branch  of  industry,  upon  which  tents  are  dependent 
—the  art  of  weaving.  No  doubt  the  skins  of  animals, 
properly  tanned,  made  efficient  coverings  ;  but  it  is 
incredible  that  mankind,  displaying  so  much  ingenuity 
in  other  directions,  should  remain  ignorant  of  the 
simple  art  of  weaving  the  wool  of  sheep  and  the  hair 
of  goats  into  much-needed  cloth.  Tradition  ascribes 
the  invention  of  the  distaff  and  the  weaving  art  to 
Naamah,  the  daughter  of  this  family,  whose  name  is 
here  mentioned  as  well  known. 

Then  follows  the  art  of  music  :  "  And  his  brother's 
name  was  Jubal :  he  was  the  father  of  all  such  as 
handle  the  harp  and  organ,"  or,  according  to  Luther's 
translation,  "  the  father  of  all  fiddlers  and  pipers." 
This  presupposes  the  previous  discovery  of  the 
octave.  Jubal  made  musical  science  an  especial 
study  ;  he  is  credited  with  the  invention  of  the  harp 
and  organ,  thus  occupying  the  same  place  in  Hebrew 
theology  as  Apollo  in  Greek  mythology.  Not  of 
course  the  harp  and  organ  in  their  perfected  state, 
but  in  their  first  rudiments,  representing  respectively 
stringed  and  wind  instruments — the  harp  resembling 
the  ancient  lyre,  and  the  organ  the  ancient  Panda^an 
pipe.  This  would  be  about  seven  or  eight  hundred 
years  after  the  Fall,  so  that  James  Montgomery's 
fancy  that  Cain  heard  the  music  and  felt  tranquillised 
and    soothed    is    not    entirely    without    foundation, 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT   OF    EVIL     337 

though  the  ground  idea  of  the  poem  that  he  was  a 
maniac,  of  haggard  appearance  and  wild  demeanour, 
is  distinctly  contradicted  by  the  direct  statements 
of  this  chapter.  Living  in  communities,  the  ante- 
diluvians cultivated  the  fine  arts  ;  the  fair  sex  began 
to  exert  their  refining  influence,  and  special  mention 
is  made  of  Adah,  the  adorned,  of  Zillah,  the 
musical  player,  and  of  Naamah,  the  beautiful.  In- 
strumental music  was  in  vogue ;  and  instrumental 
music  always  follows,  never  precedes,  vocal  music. 
Does  not  the  sobriquet  of  Zillah  suggest  that  she 
accompanied  the  harp  with  her  voice? 

Another  son  of  Lamech  was  Tubal-Cain,  "  an 
instructor  of  every  artificer  in  brass  and  iron  "  :  not 
the  discoverer  of  metals  and  the  first  to  apply  them 
to  practical  purposes,  but  one  who  made  memorable 
improvements  in  their  manufacture.  Metallurgy 
was  neither  unknown  nor  neglected.  The  metals 
were  extracted  from  the  stone,  smelted  in  furnaces, 
forged  into  industrial  machinery  and  weapons  of 
war.  Of  all  the  primeval  smiths,  Tubal-Cain 
(Vulcan)  was  the  most  celebrated.  Thus  a  large 
industry  was  established  in  copper,  brass,  and  iron  ; 
and  the  ancients,  it  is  believed,  had  a  method  of 
hardening  copper,  the  secret  of  which  has  not  yet 
been  discovered  by  our  much-vaunted  modern  science. 
Notwithstanding  the  brevity  of  the  notices,  enough 
is  said  to  show  that  the  antediluvians  were  a  mighty 
people,  muscularly  strong,  intellectually  powerful, 
and  artistically  trained.  As  with  Pompeii  and  other 
ancient  cities,  I  doubt  not  but  that  the  high  state 
of  civilisation  to  which  the  antediluvians  had 
attained  would  fill  the  modern  mind  with  admiration, 

22 


338  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

even  as  their  indescribable  degradation  in  morality 
shocks  the  modern  conscience.  Only  the  sins  of 
civilised  nations  could  loudly  clamour  for  the 
destruction  of  the  world. 

Music,  however,  cannot  be  much  developed  without 
the  aid  of  her  twin-sister  poetry.  The  historian 
could  not  give  us  plans  of  the  architecture  of  the 
ancient  world — the  buildings  had  all  been  demolished 
by  the  Deluge.  He  could  not  give  us  specimens  of 
their  harps  and  organs — they  were  made  of  perish- 
able materials  and  had  rotted  before  his  time.  But 
the  preservation  of  poetry  depends  upon  memory, 
and  therefore  he  is  able  to  give  us  an  example  of 
the  ancient  ars  poetica.  The  poet  is  Lamech ;  his 
effusion  is  known  as  the  Song  of  the  Sword. 

Lamech  said  unto  his  wives : 

Adah  and  Zillah,  hear  my  voice ; 

Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech  : 

For  I  have  slain  a  man  to  my  wounding, 

And  a  young  man  to  my  hurt. 

If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 

Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold. 

It  is  the  oldest  piece  of  poetry  extant,  the  only 
specimen  of  antediluvian  literature  that  has  come 
down  to  our  day.  How  was  it  preserved  ?  Tradition 
answers  that,  in  the  intermarriages  between  the 
Sethites  and  the  Cainites,  "  the  sons  of  God  and  the 
daughters  of  men,"  Ham  took  Naamah,  Lamech's 
daughter,  to  wife  ;  and  that,  through  her,  her  father's 
composition  passed  over  into  the  new  world.  But, 
apart  from  that,  the  Song  doubtless  became  cele- 
brated. It  is  just  the  kind  of  song  that  strikes  the 
-  popular  imagination,  full  of  sound  and  fury,  marked 


ANTEDILUVIANS:   DEVELOPMENT  OF   EVIL     339 

by  swagger  and  the  military  spirit.  Such  a  song 
would  inevitably  reach  the  family  of  Noah,  and, 
committed  to  memory,  find  its  way  into  the  new 
age.  Indeed,  there  is  no  reason  for  disbelieving  that 
writing  was  an  antediluvian  accomplishment;  the 
difficulty  is  all  on  the  other  side.  On  any  other 
hypothesis,  how  to  account  for  the  preservation  of 
the  antediluvian  registers  ?  Men  so  richly  dowered 
intellectually,  advancing  rapidly  in  knowledge,  culti- 
vating the  fine  arts,  fashioning  timber  and  working 
in  metals,  were  not  likely  to  be  unable  to  devise  an 
alphabet  or  invent  hieroglyphics,  by  means  of  which 
they  could  leave  memorials  behind  them  or  exchange 
ideas  with  one  another. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  Lamech's  Song  has  been  pre- 
served, and  in  it  we  see  the  characteristic  feature 
of  Hebrew  poetry — strophic  parallelism.  This,  I 
know,  creates  a  new  difficulty — Did  Lamech  compose 
in  Hebrew  ?  But  the  presence  of  the  unknown 
should  not  blind  our  eyes  to  that  which  is  clear. 

The  chief  significance  of  the  Song  consists  in 
the  lurid  light  it  sheds  on  the  moral  condition  of 
the  Cainite  family.  Lamech  had  two  wives.  Mono- 
gamy was  the  sacred  law  of  primeval  life,  and  was 
probably  scrupulously  observed  for  centuries  after 
the  Fall.  At  last,  the  unbridled  lusts  of  men  broke 
through  all  restraints  ;  and  in  Lamech's  Song 
polygamy  is  an  accomplished  fact,  publicly  avowed, 
and,  as  usual,  carries  in  its  train  jealousies,  heart- 
burnings, conspiracies,  murders.  It  further  shows 
that,  contemporaneous  with  the  development  of  the 
fine  arts,  society  was  lapsing  into  a  state  of 
disorganisation,     lawlessness,    and    violence.      Wars, 


340  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

private  and  public,  were  being  waged  :  hence  the 
manufacture  of  the  dagger  and  the  sword,  and  the 
roUicking  glee  with  which  their  invention  was  hailed. 
So  proud  was  Lamech  of  the  possession  of  weapons 
of  war  that  his  fierce  enthusiasm  burst  forth  in  a 
war-song. 

Studious  they  appear 
Of  arts  that  polish  life, — inventors  rare — 
Unmindful  of  their  Maker,  though  His  Spirit 
Taught  them  ;   but  they  His  gifts  acknowledge  none.  * 

What  then  is  the  meaning  of  the  Song?  The 
traditional  interpretation  is,  that  Lamech  in  it 
celebrates  his  own  prowess  in  slaying  two  men,  an 
adult  and  a  youth.  If  this  be  true,  it  exhibits  the 
growth  of  insolent  sin  in  society.  Cain,  the  first 
on  the  register,  slew  a  man,  and  was  horrified — so 
horrified  that  he  and  his  family  fled  into  a  land  of 
isolation.  Lamech,  the  last  in  the  series,  slays  two 
men.  But,  instead  of  being  dismayed,  he  glories 
in  his  valour,  and  makes  his  murderous  hate  a 
subject  of  encomium  ;  and  when  murder  is  eulogised 
in  poetry,  it  proves  that  society  is  sunk  into  un- 
fathomable depths  in  moral  callousness  and  vice. 

This  exposition,  however,  is  questioned,  and  that 
on  good  grounds.  "  The  Song  of  the  Sword,  which 
gives  expression  to  the  excitement  attending  the 
first  invention  of  deadly  weapons,  contains  the 
following  couplet  : 

I  have  slain  a  man  to  my  wounding, 
And  a  young  man  to  my  hurt. 

Does  this  passage  imply  the  slaying  of  one  person 
•  Milton,  Paradise  Lost. 


ANTEDILUVIANS  :    DEVELOPMENT   OF   EVIL     34! 

or  two  persons  ?  This  question  cannot  be  called  a 
mere  matter  of  technicalities.  Commentators  of 
the  period,  when  the  secret  of  parallelism  was  lost, 
understood  the  words  to  mean  that  two  men  were 
slain  ;  and  connecting  the  passage  with  the  succeed- 
ing couplet. 

If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 
Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold, 

they  found  an  interpretation  for  the  whole  by  sup- 
posing that,  when  Lamech  became  advanced  in 
years,  he  carried  with  him  a  youth  to  show  him 
where  to  point  his  arrows ;  that  this  youth  directing 
him  to  shoot  into  a  certain  bush,  Lamech  thereby  slew 
Cain,  and  made  himself  liable  to  the  curse  invoked 
on  the  slayer  of  that  outcast.  In  his  rage  Lamech 
shot  a  second  arrow  at  his  youthful  attendant  ;  and 
thus  two  slayings  are  accounted  for.  But  to  an  ear 
accustomed  to  parallelism  it  is  clear  enough  that 
no  such  violence  of  interpretation  is  required.  The 
second  line  of  a  couplet  need  not  be  a  separate 
statement  from  that  of  the  first  line,  but  may  be,  in 
the  spirit  of  parallelism,  a  saying  over  again  of  what 
has  been  said.  Thus  the  couplet  needs  only  imply 
the  death  of  a  single  person,  or,  better,  slaying  as 
a  general  idea.  Thus  the  whole  meaning  of  the 
passage  has  been  changed  by  attention  to  a  detail 
of  versification."  ^ 

In  accordance  with  the  idea  of  general  slaying,  the 
majority  of  modern  commentators  view  the  Song  as 
hypothetical,  in  which  Lamech  in  fierce  self-reliance 
boasts  beforehand  what  he  would  do  should  certain 

1  Moulton,  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  pp.  68,  69. 


342  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

contingencies  arise.  But  whichever  interpretation  we 
adopt,  the  venom  of  the  serpent  is  seen  inflaming 
the  passions  of  men. 

II.  In  the  Genesis  narrative  no  discovery  in  the 
physical  world  is  attributed  to  the  godly  line  of  Seth, 
no  invention  is  put  down  to  their  credit.  This 
feature  is  in  harmony  with  post-diluvian  history  :  to 
the  Gentiles  belonged  the  arts  and  sciences,  only 
ethics  and  revelation  to  the  people  of  God. 

Josephus,  however,  records  the  tradition  that  Seth 
attained  celebrity  as  an  astronomer ;  and  the 
"  columns  of  Seth,"  on  which  he  was  reported  to  have 
inscribed  his  observations  of  the  celestial  bodies, 
have  found  a  permanent  place  in  literature.  Enoch 
also  is  affirmed  to  have  devoted  much  attention  to 
astronomy.  His  fame,  under  the  name  of  Idris,  was 
carried  to  the  West  by  the  Celtic  nations  ;  and  in  his 
honour  one  of  the  noblest  Welsh  mountains  is  named 
Cader  Idris,  the  Chair  of  Idris,  because  on  the  top 
of  it,  Enoch,  the  star-gazer  as  well  as  the  saint,  was 
supposed  to  have  sat  to  carry  on  his  observations. 
These  traditions  show  that  the  ethnic  nations 
gradually  gave  a  physical  turn  to  the  spiritual  fact 
of  their  fellowship  with  God.  Their  communion 
with  heaven  was  construed  to  mean  the  study  of  the 
heavenly  bodies. 

These  floating  traditions  are  mentioned  to  show 
to  better  advantage  the  holy  reserve,  the  balanced 
sobriety,  which  always  and  everywhere  pervade  Holy 
Writ.  According  to  Genesis,  the  Sethites  became 
remarkable  for  the  simple  reason  that  through  them 
the  Divine  promise  of  redemption  was  flowing  on 
towards  its  fulfilment  in  the  future  Seed,  and  that 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT  OF    EVIL     343 

by  them  true  worship  was  perpetuated.     Intellectual 
greatness  belonged    to   the  family  of  Cain  ;    to  the 
family    of    Seth    belonged,    not    mental,   but   moral 
greatness.      Given    intellectual   greatness    and    moral 
greatness,    which    do    you    think    superior?     Young 
people,  I  fear,  would  give  the  preference  to  greatness 
of  intellect,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  that  there  was  a  time 
when  I  would  have  made  the  same  selection.     Since 
then,  however,  I  see  things  in  a  different  light— the 
man  or  the  nation  who  has  a  genius  for  goodness 
stands  higher  in  my  estimation  now  than  the  man 
or  the  nation  who  has  a  genius  for  learning.     The 
devil  is  a  genius  in  intellect,  but  God  is  a  genius  in 
goodness.    "  Show  me  Thy  glory"  prayed  Moses.     "  I 
will  make  My  goodness  pass  before  thee,"  answered 
God.      God's   glory   consists   in    His   goodness,   His 
greatness   lies   in    His    character.      Judged    by   this 
standard,  who  are  the  worthier  of  respect  and  ad- 
miration—the Cainites  or  the   Sethites,  the  men  of 
intellect  or  the  men  of  character? 
.  In  the  days  of  Enos,  Seth's  son,  "  began  men  to 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "—a  statement  which 
has   occasioned   considerable  differences   of  opinion. 
The  difficulty,  however,  is   chiefly  linguistic.     Some 
translate:   "Then  men  began   to  profane  the  name 
of  the  Lord."     That  is,  in  the  days  of  Enos  idolatry 
commenced,  then  men  began  to  carve  graven  images 
of  the  Unseen.     This  rendering   does   not   seem    to 
harmonise   well    with   the    drift   and    import   of   the 
passage.      Preference   should    therefore    be   given    to 
the  double  rendering  in  the  x^uthoriscd  Version,  for 
the    marginal  reading  and  that   in    the  body  of  the 
verse  involve  each  other :   "  Then  men  began  to  call 


344  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  ;  "  then  men  began  to 
call  themselves  by  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Delitzsch 
translates  the  word  "  declare  "  or  "  proclaim."  The 
import  seems  to  be  that  now  public  prayers  and  oral 
addresses  were  introduced  into  the  public  worship 
of  Jehovah.  Whereas  previously  the  service  was 
confined  to  the  offering  of  sacrifices  and  the  con- 
fession of  sin,  in  the  days  of  Enos  prayer,  instruction, 
and  exhortation  were  added — the  germs  of  prophecy, 
the  first  beginnings  of  preaching.  The  population 
was  now  fast  increasing,  and  to  keep  the  new  genera- 
tions from  lapsing  into  crass  ignorance  in  regard  to 
spiritual  religion,  some  settled  method  of  instruction 
was  absolutely  required.  Out  of  this  sprang  the 
other  fact,  that  men  began  to  call  themselves  by 
the  name  of  Jehovah.  In  the  promiscuous  condition 
of  society  the  religious  men  in  the  line  of  Seth 
separated  themselves,  not  locally  but  spiritually,  from 
the  impious  and  profane.  As  the  disciples  of  Christ 
became  soon  known  as  Christians,  so  true  worshippers 
now  became  known  as  "  sons  of  God "  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  "  children  of  men."  But  be  the 
precise  meaning  what  it  may,  one  thing  stands  out 
conspicuously — that  in  the  days  of  Enos  there  broke 
out  a  great  revival  of  true  religion,  worshippers  of 
Jehovah  became  more  pronounced  and  courageous, 
the  service  of  God  received  a  sensible  lift  and 
arrested  public  attention. 

Thereafter  the  true  religion  flowed  placidly  on  for 
centuries,  till,  about  the  year  900,  the  middle  epoch 
between  the  Fall  and  the  Flood,  it  culminated  in 
the  life,  character,  and  ministry  of  Enoch.  Of  this 
remarkable  man  the  affirmation  is  twice  made  that 


ANTEDILUVIANS  :    DEVELOPMENT   OF   EVIL     345 

he   "walked    with    God"— a   pecuHarity   of  phraseo- 
logy repeated  but   once   again    in    the  whole    Bible, 
in  connection  with  Noah.     Abraham  is  commanded 
to  "walk  before  God,"  the    Israelites  to  "walk  after 
God "  ;    of  Enoch  and   Noah   only  is  the   assertion 
made  that  they  "  walked  with  God."     Is  this  variation 
of  phrase  accidental,  or  does  it  convey  a  peculiarly 
specific  meaning?     From  it  the  conclusion  has  been 
drawn  that  the  Divine   theophanies  were   continued 
to  the   antediluvian    saints,  so  that   their   lack  of   a 
fuller    revelation    might    to   some    extent   be    com- 
pensated by  the  occasional  visible    presence  of  God 
in    their   midst.      For   three   hundred    years   Enoch 
walked  not  only  before  God,  but  with  Him,  in  inti- 
mate personal  fellowship.     These  long  years  of  close 
communion   with    God   were   not    spent   in   solitary 
meditation,    for    the    New    Testament    gives   us   to 
understand  that,  like  his  grandson  Noah,  he  also  was 
a  "  preacher  of  righteousness."     Indeed,  is  it  not  the 
correct  view  that  all  these  Sethite  patriarchs,  whose 
names    are    here    given,   were    preachers,    prophets, 
public  functionaries,  so  that  Enoch  was  the  "seventh" 
preacher  or  prophet  from  Adam? 

With  regard  to  Enoch  the  testimony  of  the 
Apostle  Jude  is  emphatic :  "  Enoch  also,  the  seventh 
from  Adam,  prophesied  of  these,  saying.  Behold,  the 
Lord  Cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  His  saints,  to 
execute  judgment  upon  all,  and  to  convince  all  that 
are  ungodly  among  them  of  their  ungodly  deeds 
which  they  have  ungodly  committed,  and  of  all  their 
hard  speeches  which  ungodly  sinners  have  spoken 
against  Him"  (vers.  14,  15).  According  to  most 
moderns,   Jude   derived   this    information   from    the 


346  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

Book  of  Enoch,  to  which  reference  is  often  made  by 
the  Christian  Fathers,  but  which  became  lost,  and  was 
only  recovered  this  century  in  an  Ethiopic  trans- 
lation. Its  authorship  was  ascribed  to  the  ante- 
diluvian prophet,  and  it  breathes  throughout  a  high 
spirituality.  Scholars  are  generally  agreed  that  it  is 
the  composition  of  a  devout  Jew,  living  between  the 
time  of  Malachi  and  the  First  Advent.  The  book 
was  known  to  Jude,  who  makes  from  it  the  above 
quotation.  Or  it  is  quite  possible  that  Jude  incor- 
porated it  from  Jewish  tradition.  Either  way  it 
makes  no  practical  difference,  for  it  is  just  as  con- 
sonant with  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostle  to  cite  from 
an  uninspired  book  as  from  an  uninspired  tradition. 
St.  Paul  quotes  from  uninspired  Greek  wTiters ;  why 
not  St.  Jude  from  an  uninspired  Hebrew  writer?  Its 
insertion  by  St.  Jude  as  a  veritable  prophecy  of 
Enoch  guarantees  to  Christian  believers,  though  not 
to  Christian  critics,  its  historic  veracity.  Not  content 
with  enjoying  personal  fellowship  with  God,  Enoch 
bore  public  testimony  to  Him,  and  proclaimed  to  an 
ungodly  race  the  sure  coming  of  judgment.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Day  of  Judgment  was,  therefore,  a 
doctrine  of  the  Church  before  the  Flood. 

The  prophecy  is  Enoch's  ministry  condensed,  the 
pith  and  burden  of  his  preaching.  Like  Whitefield  in 
modern  days,  he  itinerated  the  country,  threatening 
the  judgment  of  the  Almighty  on  all  workers  of 
iniquity.  Like  John  Wesley,  he  frequented  the 
markets  and  fairs,  and,  his  heart  all  aflame  with  holy 
zeal,  denounced  dishonesty,  violence,  and  illicit 
pleasures.  He  had  no  written  revelation,  and  but  few 
like-minded  to  encourage  him  in  his  efforts  to  stem 


ANTEDILUVIANS  :    DEVELOPMENT   OF   EVIL     347 

the  swelling  tide  of  iniquity.  But  he  had  probably 
heard  Adam  once  and  again,  when  the  saints  met 
for  worship  to  the  east  of  Eden,  tell  the  story  of  the 
Fall  ;  he  had  heard  Eve  repeat,  word  for  word,  the 
promise  of  the  Seed  which  was  to  crush  the  serpent's 
head  ;  he  had  learnt  the  tale  of  the  murder  of  Abel 
and  the  subsequent  exile  of  Cain.  He  had  known 
of  other  revelations,  and  doubtless  had  received  fresh 
revelations  himself,  if  the  testimony  of  Jude  is  to  be 
taken  as  historic  truth. 

All  this  is  not  written  in  the  Genesis  narrative. 
But  assuming  human  nature  to  have  been  then  what 
it  is  now,  is  it  at  all  improbable  ?  Men  were  social 
then  as  now,  full  of  inquisitiveness,  ever  desirous  to 
hear  or  to  tell  some  new  thing.  As  Enoch  was  a 
contemporary  of  Adam  dwelling  in  the  same  land, 
attracted  by  religious  affinities,  is  it  not  likely,  nay, 
certain,  that  he  would  seek  from  him  knowledge  of 
the  Fall  and  of  the  promise  of  Redemption  ?  A 
bold,  brave,  honest  man,  he  witnessed  to  God  and 
righteousness  in  a  wicked  and  adulterous  generation. 
As  usual,  his  faithful,  austere  ministry  excited  the 
laughter  of  some,  roused  the  ire  of  others.  Even 
nominal  professors  of  religion  voted  him  a  fanatic, 
considered  him  half-cracked.  That  is  not  down  in 
the  Book,  you  say.  Down  in  the  Book  !  No  ;  for 
it  is  down  in  human  nature,  which  in  its  essential 
elements  is  the  same  after  as  before  the  Deluge. 
Was  not  Daniel  Rowlands,  the  great  evangelist  of 
Wales,  called  by  religious  people  the  "  cracked " 
clergyman  of  Llangeitho  ?  Yet  through  the  "  cracks  " 
these  holy  men,  intoxicated  with  seraphic  enthusiasm, 
saw  farther  into  the  spiritual  world  than  their  more 


348  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

demure  critics.  Enoch's  sermon,  preserved  by  Jude, 
is  the  only  specimen  of  the  ministry  of  the  ante- 
diluvian Church  which  has  come  down  to  our  day. 
As  we  have  one  specimen  of  the  ungodly  literature 
of  the  period  in  Lamech's  song,  so  have  we  one 
example  of  the  preaching  of  that  age  in  Enoch's 
prophecy.  Either  in  writing  or  memory  it  was 
treasured  by  his  grandson,  Noah  ;  it  floated  across 
the  waters  of  the  Deluge  ;  it  came  down  past  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  is  an  object  of 
curiosity,  and  a  subject  of  controversy,  to  the  critics 
of  the  nineteenth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Its 
chief  value  to  us,  however,  consists  in  the  dismal 
light  it  flings  on  the  moral  condition  of  the  world  at 
the  time,  midway  between  the  Fall  and  the  Flood. 
Four  times  in  the  space  of  a  few  lines  it  repeats  the 
word  "ungodly,"  twanging  the  same  string  in  the 
ear  of  men  till  it  sounds  like  the  knell  of  judgment, 
thus  showing  that  flagrant  impurities  were  rife  in 
the  land.  Immorality  as  usual  led  to  infidelity — 
ungodly  men  spoke  "  hard  speeches  "  against  Him  ! 

Another  fact  of  moment  in  Enoch's  history  is  his 
translation  without  seeing  death.  "  He  was  not,  for 
God  took  him,"  is  the  archaic,  enigmatic  information 
given.  "  He  was  translated  without  seeing  death," 
is  the  apostolic  commentary.  His  disappearance 
must  have  occasioned  great  sensation  among  his 
compatriots.  Sudden  fear  must  have  fallen  on  the 
ungodly,  strange  searchings  of  heart  must  have 
broken  the  slumbers  of  the  Church.  Believers  and 
unbelievers  could  not  but  speculate  concerning  his 
fate.  Thinking  he  might  have  been  dropped  from 
the   clouds,  they    organised    exploring   parties,   who, 


ANTEDILUVIANS  :    DEVELOPMENT   OF    EVIL     349 

climbing  the  mountains,  scoured  the  hollows  and 
ravines.  But  "  he  was  not  found,  7tot  found,  for  God 
had  translated  him." 

This  translation  of  Enoch  served  a  double  pur- 
pose. First,  it  intimated  to  the  men  then  living 
that  death  is  not  the  end  of  existence.  "  To  be  or 
not  to  be  ?  "  That  was  the  all-important  question 
then  as  always.  The  invisible  world  becomes  by 
degrees  an  incredible  world,  especially  to  men  who 
walk  by  sight,  and  not  by  faith.  Consequently,  in 
each  dispensation  God  has  given  men  one  palpable 
demonstration  of  the  existence  of  a  future  state. 
Enoch's  ascension  in  the  antediluvian  dispensation, 
Elijah's  in  the  Jewish,  and  Christ's  in  the  Christian,  all 
proclaim  loudly  that  another  world  exists.  Second, 
it  taught  the  immortality  of  man  in  the  entirety  of 
his  nature ;  not  the  survival  of  the  soul  only,  but 
of  the  body  also.  If  the  antediluvians  did  not  know 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  by  a  direct  revelation 
from  heaven,  they  could  not,  after  the  ascension  of 
Enoch,  but  theorise  respecting  the  ultimate  fate  of 
the  body.  Contemporary  believers — and  all  the 
patriarchs  here  enumerated,  except  Adam  and  Noah, 
were  then  alive — deeply  revolved  it  in  their  minds. 
Gradually  the  spiritual  instinct  within  appropriated 
it,  if  not  as  an  article  of  doctrine,  at  all  events  as 
a  truth  of  faith. 

The  ancient  saints  are  habitually  represented  in 
modern  books  as  more  ignorant  of  God  and  the 
spiritual  world  than  they  really  were.  Adam  and 
Enoch,  Noah  and  Abraham,  were  able,  thoughtful 
men,  aided  in  their  deep  thinking,  as  occasion  re- 
quired, by   inspiration    from   above,     The   Book    of 


350  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

Genesis,  so  opulent  in  spiritual  truth,  is  only  a 
fragmentary  summary  of  the  profound  thinking  of 
these  venerable  men.  Be  the  Book  of  Job  the 
production  of  the  Mosaic  or  a  later  age,  it  indicates 
the  quality  of  religious  thought  from  the  beginning  : 
"  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  and  that  He 
shall  stand  at  the  latter  day  on  the  earth  ;  and 
though  after  my  skin  worms  destroy  this  body, 
yet  in  my  flesh  I  will  see  God  ;  whom  I  shall  see 
for  myself,  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not 
another"  (Job  xix.  25-27).  This  wonderful  passage 
may  be  but  the  efflorescence  of  true  religion  in  the 
after-time  ;  but  the  flower  would  not  show  on  the 
branch  did  the  sap  not  circulate  in  the  root. 

From  Enoch's  time  on,  a  period  of  another  nine 
hundred  years,  immorality  rapidly  spread,  spiritual 
religion  as  rapidly  declined.  In  the  direct  lineage 
of  Enoch  true  worship  still  survived,  and  with  it 
pure  morality ;  but  the  range  of  their  influence  was 
annually  contracting.  Lamech's  exclamation — the 
Sethite  Lamech — gives  us  a  momentary  glimpse  into 
the  religious  condition  of  the  Church :  "  He  called 
his  name  Noah,  saying.  This  same  shall  comfort  us 
concerning  our  work  and  toil  of  our  hands,  because 
of  the  ground  which  the  Lord  hath  cursed."  These 
words  suggest  that  life  had  become  almost  intoler- 
able, that  the  burden  of  existence  was  well-nigh 
too  heavy  to  bear,  and  that  as  a  result  the  Church 
had  fallen  into  a  state  of  profound  dejection.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  teach  that,  notwithstanding 
the  spread  of  godlessness,  the  hope  of  a  Deliverer 
was  yet  alive,  the  expectation  of  the  woman's  Seed 
to  cancel  the  curse  of  sin  and   to   usher   in   an  era 


ANTEDILUVIANS:    DEVELOPMENT   OF    EVIL     351 

of  plenty  and  peace.  But  whilst  a  faithful  few  still 
remained,  the  great  majority  even  of  the  Sethites 
were  overtaken  by  the  flood  of  ungodliness.  The 
unbelief  and  worldliness  of  the  Cainites,  their  vices 
and  immoralities,  overflowed  into  the  Church.  Evil 
seemed  to  be  triumphing  over  Good  ;  the  seed  of 
the  serpent  was  fast  overcoming  the  seed  of  the 
woman.  The  crisis  of  the  battle  was  near.  The 
Deluge  of  Sin  preceded  the  Deluge  of  Water,  and 
the  former  was  the  cause  and  justification  of  the 
latter. 


CHAPTER    XIV 

THE   DELUGE  :   THE   APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL 

IN  his  brilliant,  self-confident  manner  Mr.  Huxley 
scouts  the  idea  of  a  deluge  such  as  is  described 
in  Genesis,  "  It  is  difficult,"  he  says,  "  to  persuade 
serious  scientific  inquirers  to  occupy  themselves  in 
any  way  with  the  Noachian  deluge."^  However, 
scientific  men  of  no  mean  repute  believe  that  they 
discover  traces  of  land  subsidence  in  Armenia,  which 
justifies  them  in  accepting  the  Mosaic  statement. 

But  though  science  has  so  far  but  little  to  say  regard- 
ing this  question,  and  that  little  it  says  in  a  hesitant, 
stammering  fashion,  the  traditions  of  the  nations, 
by  their  more  than  usual  copiousness,  compensate 
for  this  deficiency.  There  is  not  a  nation,  it 
is  said,  on  the  five  continents,  with  the  exception 
of  the  negroes,  who  are  not  rich  in  reminiscences 
concerning  a  great  Flood. 

The  Chaldaean  legend  has  been  preserved  by 
Berosus,  a  heathen  priest,  who  lived  three  centuries 
before  Christ.  He  gives  an  elaborate  account  of 
a  mighty  Flood,  and  the  escape  of  Xisuthros  in  a 
ship — his  sending  out  birds,  which  the  last  time 
returned  with  mud  on  their  feet.  Another  version, 
substantially  the  same,  is  given  us  by  Mr.    George 

'  Contem;porary  Review ^  July,  1890. 
352 


THE   DELUGE:    APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     353 

Smith  in  his  translation  of  the  Chaldaean  tablets. 
Samus  Napisti  or  Xisuthros — the  Biblical  Noah — 
relates  the  story  of  the  Deluge,  how  he  was  enjoined 
by  the  gods  to  build  a  ship,  and  how  he  gathered 
all  seed  and  animal  life  into  it.  When  he  and  his 
family  had  entered,  and  the  door  was  shut,  the 
tempest  began.  So  terrible  was  the  scene  that 
even  the  gods  shook  with  alarm.  "  The  gods,  like 
dogs  in  their  kennel,  crouched  down  in  a  heap." 
At  length  the  rain  abated,  and  the  winds  hushed. 
Thereupon  Samus  Napisti,  looking  out  through  the 
window  of  the  ark,  beheld  "corpses  floating  on  the 
waters  like  reeds."  At  last  the  ship  grounded  on 
a  high  mountain.  The  adventurous  voyager  sent 
forth  a  dove,  which  presently  returned,  because  "  a 
resting-place  it  did  not  find."  He  next  lets  go  a 
swallow,  which,  skimming  the  sky,  flew  away  ;  but 
at  length  returned  because  it  found  "  no  resting- 
place."  A  raven  was  next  despatched — "  he  ate,  he 
swam,  he  wandered  away,  he  returned  not."  The 
saved  man  and  his  family  came  out,  offered  a 
sacrifice,  around  which  the  gods,  smelling  the  sweet 
savour,  "  gathered  like  flies." 

The  Greek  legend  is  told  by  Hesiod  and  Ovid, 
with  slight  variations,  but  practically  the  same. 
Mankind,  because  of  their  high-handed  impiety, 
were  doomed  by  Zeus  (Jupiter)  to  destruction.  But 
Deucalion,  in  virtue  of  his  great  piety,  was  warned 
of  the  coming  judgment.  Hence  he  constructed 
a  boat  in  accordance  with  Divine  instructions. 
Presently  the  Flood  came,  the  world  was  over- 
whelmed, all  mankind  perished  except  Deucalion 
and  Pyrrha  his  wife,  their  three  sons  and  their  three 

23 


354  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

daughters.  The  boat  floated  till  it  landed  on 
Parnassus.  Deucalion  sent  forth  a  dove,  which 
before  long  returned.  She  was  let  loose  the  second 
time,  but  did  not  return  ;  or,  according  to  another 
version,  she  alighted  on  the  roof  of  the  ark,  with  her 
claws  stained  with  mud — an  indication  that  the 
assuaging  of  the  waters  had  commenced. 

Not  to  occupy  space  in  the  narration  of  the 
Egyptian,  Indian,  and  other  legends,  call  to  mind 
the  tradition  preserved  in  the  folklore  of  Wales. 
A  Welsh  Triad  informs  us  that  the  first  master-work 
of  the  Isle  of  Britain  was  the  building  of  a  ship 
which  carried  in  it  a  man  and  woman  when  Lake 
Llion  (floods)  burst  its  banks  ;  and  the  second  the 
drawing  to  land  of  the  Avangc,  which  brought 
about  the  disaster.  Neivion,  with  his  three  sons,  Hu, 
Tydain,  and  Dylan,  built  a  ship,  in  which  all  creatures 
were  preserved  in  pairs,  and  in  which  Dwywan  and 
Dwywrach  escaped  the  destruction  which  befell  all 
mankind  besides.^ 

Go  where  we  will,  these  traditions  meet  us.  How 
to  account  for  them  ?  By  the  supposition  that  a 
Flood  never  took  place  ?  Then  mankind  are  idiots, 
and  in  the  fact  that  these  legends,  identical  in 
substance,  prevail  everywhere,  we  have  a  miracle  of 
lunacy.  Is  it  not  more  respectful  to  the  race,  and 
more  consonant  with  all  that  is  noble  and  generous, 
to  believe  that  they  are  vague  recollections  of  an 
actual  tragedy  in  the  history  of  the  world  ?  All 
nations  in  the  north  and  south,  in  the  east  and  west, 
could  not  have  entered  into  collusion  to  dream  the 
same  dream,  to  tell  the  same  tale,  were  there  not  a 
'  Owen  Morgan,  Light  of  Britannia,  p.   ii6. 


THE   DELUGE:    APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     355 

central  fact  such  as  is  vouched  for  in  the  Genesis 
story. 

I.  Of  subordinate  interest  is  the  inquiry  touching 
the  extent  of  the  Deluge. 

The  language  employed  by  the  historian  is  strong  : 
"  The  waters  prevailed  exceedingly  upon  the  earth  ; 
and  all  the  high  hills  that  were  under  the  whole 
heaven  were  covered"  (vii.  19).  But  assertions  of 
similar  vehemence  and  absoluteness  in  other  parts  of 
Scripture  are  known  to  have  a  limited  signification. 
The  phraseology  receives  its  universal  character  from 
the  intensity  of  feeling  in  the  writer  or  first  reporter 
of  the  event.  The  catastrophe  was  so  solemn, 
appalling,  and  overwhelming  that  every  faculty  and 
emotion  in  Noah  were  strained  to  their  highest 
tension.  Such  impressions  and  emotions  always 
manifest  themselves  in  strong  rhetorical  language, 
the  speaker  feeling  that  only  superlatives  can  give 
adequate  expression  to  the  truth.  Weaker  language 
would  be  subjectively  untrue.  The  description  bears 
the  stamp  of  subjective  truthfulness  ;  how  far  it 
presents  objective  truth  is  for  the  readers  to  decide. 

Personally  I  see  no  cause  to  maintain  the  univer- 
sality of  the  Deluge.  In  its  interpretation  the  Bible 
always  demands  sobermindedness.  The  moral  pur- 
pose of  the  Deluge  largely  determines  its  extent- 
The  object  was  the  perdition  of  the  human  race. 
The  Flood  need  not,  therefore,  have  extended  beyond 
the  area  of  population,  which  probably  covered 
Armenia  and  the  adjoining  countries.  All  that  the 
story  requires  us  to  believe  is,  that  all  mankind 
perished  except  the  eight  souls  saved  in  the  ark. 

Whilst  accepting  the  theory  of  a  deluge  adequate 


356  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

to  its  purpose,  a  deluge  of  limited  extent,  I  disclaim 
sympathy  with  the  objections,  and  especially  the 
spirit  of  the  objections,  often  urged  against  the  con- 
trary view.  "  If  the  Flood  extended  to  Australia," 
writes  Dr.  Dods,  "  and  destroyed  all  animal  life  there, 
what  are  we  compelled  to  suppose  as  the  order  of 
events  ?  We  must  suppose  that  the  creatures,  visited 
by  some  presentiment  of  what  was  to  happen  many 
months  after,  selected  specimens  of  their  number,  and 
that  these  specimens  by  some  unknown  and  quite 
inconceivable  means  crossed  thousands  of  miles  of 
sea,  found  their  way  through  all  kinds  of  perils  from 
unaccustomed  climate,  food,  and  beasts  of  prey, 
singled  out  Noah  by  some  inscrutable  instinct,  and 
surrendered  themselves  into  his  keeping."  ^  That 
doubtless  is  the  way  Dr.  Dods  would  set  about  it 
— "  get  the  animals  to  select  specimens  of  their 
number,"  though  the  learned  divine  does  not  con- 
descend to  tell  us  whether  it  would  be  by  ballot  or 
by  show  of  hands.  However,  the  Supreme  Being 
is  not  necessarily  confined  to  Dr.  Dods'  method. 
Even  if  the  Deluge  were  universal,  the  difficulties 
enumerated  would  not  prove  insuperable  to  the 
Almighty,  who,  when  the  ship  was  in  the  midst  of 
the  sea,  caused  it  immediately  to  reach  the  shore  ; 
who  caught  up  Philip  and  transported  him  instantly 
from  Gaza  to  Samaria  in  a  manner  we  know  not. 
Such  writing  ignores  the  supernatural  character  of 
the  episode,  endeavours  to  explain  it  on  naturalistic 
principles,  and  thereby  comes  very  near  holding  up 
to  ridicule  Him  who  is  God  blessed  for  evermore. 
To  examine  the  Deluge  as  a  mere  physical  fact 
^  Genesis,  p.  56. 


THE   DELUGE:    APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     357 

is  to  unduly  narrow  the  question  and  improperly 
disengage  it  from  its  connections.  The  Deluge, 
however,  is  not  a  prodigy  or  an  accident,  but  a 
miracle,  a  supernatural  event,  by  which  God  executes 
judgment  on  presumptuous  sin.  The  attempt,  there- 
fore, to  explain  it  on  natural  grounds,  such  as  a  local 
and  periodical  inundation  of  the  Tigris  or  Euphrates, 
is  branded  with  futility.  On  the  other  hand,  to  essay 
to  deny  it  on  natural  grounds  is  still  more  vain. 
Such  inquiries  as,  Where  could  water  enough  be  had 
to  cover  the  tops  of  the  highest  mountains  ?  overlook 
the  fundamental  character  of  the  event.  Were  it  a 
natural  overflow,  brought  about  by  the  action  of 
physical  forces,  such  queries  might  be  in  place,  for 
Nature  can  only  work  with  the  stock  she  already 
possesses — she  can  neither  add  nor  diminish. 

But  to  ask  where  God  could  get  so  much  water, 
and  what  He  could  have  done  with  it  when  the  storm 
was  overpast,  savours  of  atheism.  God,  who  created 
the  waters  at  the  beginning,  could  not  be  at  a  loss 
how  to  get  a  few  million  gallons  more  if  required, 
nor  embarrassed  where  to  put  it  when  the  subsidence 
took  place,  following  the  blowing  of  the  wind.  Be 
it  firmly  gasped  that  the  Deluge  was  a  supernatural 
event,  having  its  cause,  not  in  the  physical,  but  in 
the  moral  world.  That  God  employed  secondary 
means,  physical  laws,  to  accomplish  His  end  is  not 
denied  ;  but  these  laws,  left  to  pursue  their  ac- 
customed course,  would  not  produce  the  Deluge — at 
the  time,  in  the  manner,  and  to  the  extent  indicated. 
God  let  them  loose  ;  hence  the  tragic  calamity.  "  It 
might  apparently  be  argued,"  writes  Dr.  Dods,  "  that 
it    [the    Deluge]  could   not  have  spread  to  the  sea- 


358  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

coast,  or  that  at  any  rate  no  ships  had  as  yet  been 
built  large  enough  to  weather  a  severe  storm  ;  for 
a  thoroughly  nautical  population  could  have  had 
little  difficulty  in  surviving  such  a  catastrophe  as  is 
here  described."  Little  difficulty?  Did  the  Deluge 
come  on  now,  picture  Dr.  Dods  and  a  crew  of  brave 
Scots  manning  a  Clyde  boat  to  dodge  the  Almighty 
to  drown  them  !  Such  writing  is  out  of  harmony 
with  the  solemn  tone  of  the  sacred  narrative,  and 
mistakes  both  the  moral  purpose  and  the  super- 
natural character  of  the  event. 

II.  Properly  to  apprehend  the  Biblical  account  of 
the  Deluge,  it  should  be  contemplated  from  a  moral, 
not  a  physical  standpoint. 

From  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  the 
Revelation  ethics  govern  physics.  So  long  as  man 
rendered  obedience  to  his  Maker,  the  earth  smiled 
in  abundance  upon  its  cultivators.  When  man 
sinned,  the  curse  of  barrenness  fell  upon  the  soil.  In 
prophecy  also  we  find  that  ethics  always  govern 
physics.  Lax  morality  is  always  followed  by 
agricultural  sterility,  by  famine,  by  pestilence  ;  on 
the  contrary,  godliness  in  a  nation  guarantees  fulness 
of  bread.  Devotedness  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
conscientious  observance  of  His  laws,  secures  as  their 
result  rich  harvests  and  commercial  prosperity. 
"  Seek  ye  first  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  righ- 
teousness, and  all  these  things  will  be  added  unto 
you,"  is  the  principle  lying  at  the  basis  of  all 
history.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  too  much  to  aver  that  the 
Bible  is  the  only  book  in  which  physics  all  along 
are  subordinated  to  ethics,  and  in  which  history  is 
written  in  the  lii^ht  of  the  moral  idea. 


THE  DELUGE:    APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     ^59 

Looked  upon  thus  the  Dekige  takes  its  place,  I  am 
tempted  to  say,  naturally,  in  the  orderly  sequence 
of  events.  Given  the  awful  wickedness  described  in 
the  sixth  chapter,  and  the  overthrow  of  the  world 
in  one  way  or  another  is  morally  inevitable.  "  God 
saw  that  every  imagination  of  a  man's  heart  was  only 
evil  continually."  Men's  thoughts,  from  their  first 
embryonic  inception  deep  down  in  the  mind  to  their 
outward  consummation  in  act,  were  evil,  and  only 
evil  continually.  Conscience  seems  to  have  died  out 
of  the  race.  A  continuance  of  this  state  of  utter  and 
universal  godlessness,  with  only  one  pious  family 
in  the  whole  earth,  was  a  moral  impossibility. 
Further  longsufifering  would  be  but  a  premium  on 
vice,  violence,  and  unchastity.  The  destruction  of 
the  world  was  an  absolute  governmental  necessity, 
arising  not  from  physics,  but  from  ethics  ;  not  from 
the  operation  of  natural  forces,  but  from  the  in- 
exorable working  of  moral  laws.  Were  there  no 
distinct  record  of  some  such  disaster  as  the  Flood, 
the  trained  conscience  would  be  more  staggered  by 
its  absence  than  the  enlightened  intellect  is  by  its 
presence.  Granted  a  state  of  utter  godlessness,  of 
out-and-out  corruption  and  cruelty  and  injustice — 
without  restraints  from  within  or  checks  from  with- 
out, without  fear  of  God  or  regard  of  man — and  the 
destruction  of  the  world  becomes  a  moral  certainty. 

III.  In  the  sixth  chapter  is  drawn  a  moral  portrai- 
ture of  the  world  immediately  before  the  Flood. 

The  line  of  Cain  and  the  line  of  Seth  are  seen 
to  coalesce  and  intermingle,  and  thereby  the  last 
rampart  against  ungodliness  is  swept  away  :  "  And  it 
came  to  pass,  that  when  men  began  to  multiply  on 


360  PRIMEVAL  REVELATION 

the  face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto 
them,  that  the  sons  of  God  saw  the  daughters  of  men 
that  they  were  fair,  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all 
which  they  chose."  Most  extraordinary  and  fantastic 
explanations  have  been  propounded  by  commentators. 
Only  two  need  here  be  mentioned. 

First,  that  by  "  sons  of  God  "  are  intended  angels, 
who  fell  in  love  with  feminine  beauty,  and  that 
therefore  unholy  intercourse  between  angels  and 
women  is  taught.  Among  the  ancients,  Justin 
Martyr,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
and  Ambrose  advocated  this  interpretation.  Having 
been  brought  up  in  Paganism,  their  minds  familiar 
from  infancy  with  impure  conceptions  of  illicit 
relations  between  the  gods  and  women-kind,  they 
were  naturally  captivated  by  this  wild  theory. 
Among  modern  theologians  of  repute,  Stier,  Nitzsch, 
Kurtz,  and  Delitzsch  strenuously  maintain  it.  This 
alone  explains,  they  say,  the  statement  made  in 
vcr.  4 — "  There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those 
days  ;  and  also  after  that,  when  the  sons  of  God 
came  in  unto  the  daughters  of  men,  and  they  bare 
children  to  them,  the  same  became  mighty  men 
\iiepJiiliin'\  which  were  of  old,  men  of  renown."  The 
natural  order  was  subverted  ;  demonic  men,  with  the 
devil's  fire  in  their  blood,  walked  the  earth  ;  mankind 
were  dehumanised.  Hence  the  imperative  necessity 
of  bringing  to  a  sudden  end  this  diabolical  breed, 
a  cross  between  fallen  angels  and  fallen  women. 
What  an  awful  depth  of  depravity  is  here  opened  to 
our  view !     The    Deluge  becomes  a  moral  necessity. 

The  later  Fathers,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
Theodoret,    Augustine,    and    Jerome,   condemn    that 


THE   DELUGE:    ArPARENT  TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     36 1 

view  as  monstrous  and  profane.  It  contradicts  all 
our  settled  convictions  in  regard  of  the  distinctions 
between  spirit  and  matter,  and  shocks  us  by  its 
antagonism  to  all  natural  correspondences.  More 
valuable  than  scholarship  is  what  St.  Paul  calls 
sobermindedness  for  the  understanding  of  Holy  Writ. 
The  view,  therefore,  which  commends  itself  to  my 
judgment  is  the  simple  one,  for  which  the  preceding 
chapters  have  prepared  us,  that  the  sons  of  God 
were  the  descendants  of  Seth,  and  the  daughters  of 
men  women  in  general,  including  every  branch  of 
the  Adamite  family,  the  posterity  of  all  the  "sons 
and  daughters "  of  the  first  pair,  with  especial 
reference  to  the  Cainite  women.  It  was  a  period 
of  the  free  intermingling  of  families.  Professors 
of  religion  formed  mesalliances  with  voluptuous 
women,  lust  overtopped  all  barriers,  polygamy 
desecrated  the  Church,  and  with  polygamy  rushed 
in  all  unnameable  impurities. 

"  The  earth  was  corrupt  before  God,"  signifying 
that  true  worship  had  degenerated  into  profanity. 
"  The  earth  was  filled  with  violence,"  denoting  the 
subversion  of  social  order  by  anarchy  and  rapine. 
"  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great 
on  the  earth."  No  wonder,  therefore,  that  "  it 
repented  the  Lord  that  He  had  made  man  on 
the  earth,  and  that  it  grieved  Him  at  His  heart." 
But  it  is  objected  that  God  is  immutable.  Yes  ; 
and  the  immutability  of  His  character  is  the  reason 
for  the  vicissitudes  in  the  method  of  His  procedure 
towards  men.  Because  He  is  unchangeable  in  His 
love  and  holiness.  He  varies  His  dispensations  in 
accordance  with  the  changed  moral  conditions  of  His 


362  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

creatures.  God  created  man  In  His  image,  after 
His  likeness;  but  now  "all  flesh  has  corrupted  his 
way  on  the  earth."  The  corruption  is  deep  and 
universal.  Amongst  all  the  families  of  men,  only 
one  remained  loyal  to  God,  and  in  that  family 
possibly  only  one  man!— "Thee  [Noah]  have  I  seen 
righteous  before  Me  in  this  generation"  (vii.  i). 
What  a  terrible  indictment  of  the  world  !  "  Write 
on  the  low  brow — '  the  image  and  likeness  of  God  ' ; 
write  on  the  idiot's  leering  face — '  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God  '  ;  write  on  the  sensualist's  porcine 
face — *  the  image  and  likeness  of  God  '  ;  write  on  the 
puppet's  powdered  and  painted  countenance — '  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God  ' — do  this,  and  then  say 
how  infinite  is  the  mockery,  how  infinite  the  lie."  ^ 

The  Image  of  God  !  Oh,  the  irony  of  the  situation  ! 
No  wonder  that  "  it  repented  the  Lord  that  He  had 
made  man,  and  that  it  grieved  Him  at  His  heart, 
and  that  He  said,  I  will  destroy  man."  The  wonder 
is  that  He  suffered  him  so  long.  And,  truth  to  tell, 
when  I  see  these  riotous,  outrageous,  lascivious  men, 
it  repents  me  too  that  God  ever  made  them,  and 
it  grieves  me  at  my  heart.  God  made  men  in 
His  image,  after  His  likeness.  God  indeed  !  Say 
rather  the  devil  made  them.  "  Of  your  father,  the 
devil,  ye  are  ;  and  the  works  of  your  father  will  ye 
do."  "  And  God  said.  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come 
before  Me."  The  measure  of  their  iniquity  is  full  ; 
sin  in  all  its  ramifications  has  worked  itself  out  to 
its  farthest  limits  ;  its  cry,  like  the  roar  of  the  sea, 
"  foaming  out  its  own  shame,"  has  ascended  to 
heaven  ;  and  God  says,  "  I  will  destroy  man  from 
'  Dr.  Parker,  T/ie  People's  Bible ^  vol.  i.,  p.  112. 


THE   DELUGE  :    APPARENT   TRIUMPH    OF   EVH.     363 

the    face    of    the    earth,    even    as    a    man    wipeth    a 
dish." 

Before  destruction  came,  God  gave  timely  warning  : 
"  The  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive 
with  man,  for  that  he  also  is  flesh  ;  yet  his  days  shall 
be  an  hundred  and  twenty  years."  When  God  says, 
"  My  Spirit,"  many  exegetes,  carried  away  by  the 
idea  that  it  is  too  early  yet  to  speak  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  dilute  it  into  man's  spirit,  thus  converting  the 
Spirit  of  God  into  the  spirit  that  is  in  man.  How- 
ever, we  must  not  be  hoodwinked  by  preconceived 
theories.  If  God  says,  ''My  Spirit,"  He  does  not 
mean  our  spirit.  But  when  the  ancients  spoke  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  they  did  not  conceive  of  Him  as  a 
personal  hypostasis,  any  more  than  when  they  spoke 
of  the  spirit  of  man  they  conceived  of  it  as  an 
identity  distinguishable  from  man. 

Thus  far  God  has  not  abandoned  the  human  race, 
leaving  it  to  rot  in  uncleanness.  His  Spirit  was 
striving  with  man,  invigorating  the  reason,  quicken- 
ing the  conscience,  contending  with  the  corruption 
of  his  nature.  But  man's  turpitude  continued  to 
increase,  the  Divine  in  him  was  growing  feebler,  the 
carnal  waxing  stronger.  Only  the  smallest  spark  of 
the  Divine  Fire  remained  unextinguished  amid  the 
foul  ashes  of  fleshly  lusts.  On  that  spark  the  Divine 
Spirit  was  blowing  to  fan  it  into  a  flame  ;  but, 
instead  of  brightening,  it  was  dying,  till  the  last 
vestige  of  divinity  was  on  the  verge  of  extinction, 
and  man  was  becoming  flesh,  all  flesh,  and  nothing 
but  flesh.  But  before  withdrawing  the  restraining 
influences  of  His  Spirit,  God  made  one  great  final 
efi"ort.     He   commissioned    Noah  to  preach  the   im- 


364  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

pending  judgment,  and  doubtless  his  ministry  was 
accompanied  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  venerable  patriarch  did  his  work  faithfully  and 
well.  He  rebuked  the  dread  apostasy  of  the  Church 
in  his  own  genealogical  line,  denounced  the  dire 
ungodliness  and  defiant  presumption  in  the  line  of 
Cain.  He  prophesied  to  them  of  the  coming  Flood, 
besought  them  to  return  to  God,  if  haply  they 
might  find  Him.  What  response  did  he  get?  "He 
seemed  to  them  as  one  that  mocked,"  they  laughed 
outright  at  the  amiable  fanatic,  ridiculed  his  warnings, 
disregarded  his  exhortations.  They  went  on  "  eating 
and  drinking,  building  and  planting,  marrying  and 
giving  in  marriage."  Then  he  began  the  building  of 
the  ark.  For  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  he 
laboured  at  that  huge  ship  in  shape  like  a  chest,  with 
a  carrying  capacity  of  eighty-one  thousand  tons, 
second  in  size  only  to  the  Great  Eastern.  His 
patrimony  was  doubtless  expended  in  the  purchase  of 
materials  and  the  payment  of  shipwrights.  Backed 
only  by  the  faith  of  that  one  man,  the  axes  and 
hammers  went  all  those  weary  years.  He  was  put 
down  as  a  maniac  ;  his  unwieldy  wooden  structure 
was  deemed  an  immense  joke  ;  men  came  from  afar 
to  see  the  old  preacher  and  his  tub !  The  laughter 
of  the  antediluvian  world  at  Noah  and  his  ark  was 
long,  loud,  and  boisterous.  "  The  longsuffering  of 
God  waited  in  the  time  of  Noah  while  the  ark  was 
a-preparing."  The  Divine  admonitions  served  no 
purpose,  men  dehumanised  themselves,  became  wild 
beasts,  making  even  their  reason  subserve  their 
passions. 

Lo,   the    Flood    came ;    ''  The   foundations   of    the 


THE  DELUGE:    APPARENT   TRIUMPH   OF   EVIL     365 

great  deep  were  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of 
heaven  were  opened."  Vain  are  all  attempts  to 
explain  this  on  naturalistic  principles.  But  what 
about  the  laws  of  Nature,  the  staple  of  modern 
science  ?  Rather  ask,  What  about  the  laws  of  God  ? 
Here  it  is  the  laws  of  God  which  are  in  operation, 
and  the  laws  of  God  can  always  make  the  laws  of 
Nature  bend  to  answer  their  own  purposes.  The 
Deluge,  as  previously  stated,  must  be  viewed,  not  in 
the  light  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  but  in  the  light 
of  the  laws  of  God.  Primarily  it  is  a  supernatural 
event  in  the  moral  government  of  the  world,  taking 
its  place  among  miracles,  inexplicable  save  in  the 
light  of  the  Divine  Power  and  Purpose. 

God's  purpose  of  having  a  godly  seed,  a  large 
multitude  which  no  man  can  number,  shall  not  be 
frustrated  by  human  defection.  The  Deluge  was  a 
necessity,  not  only  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  Justice, 
but  also  to  enable  Mercy  to  attain  its  high  and  noble 
aims.  God  drowned  the  race  only  when  it  had 
arrived  at  a  stage  of  incorrigibleness  in  evil,  past  all 
the  ameliorating  influences  at  His  disposal.  Noahi 
however, — "  among  the  faithless,  faithful  only  he," — 
found  favour  with  God;  and  through  him  God 
resolved  to  continue  the  race  till  its  salvation  should 
be  perfectly  wrought  out.  The  Deluge  thus  became 
a  necessary  step  in  the  salvation  of  the  world,  a  link 
in  the  history  of  redemption  :  "  The  ark,  wherein  a 
few,  that  is,  eight  souls  were  saved  by  water"  (i  Pet. 
iii.  20).  From  water?  No;  by  water.  They  were 
saved  in  the  ark,  but  by  water.  The  world  perished 
by  water ;  the  Church  was  saved  by  the  very  means 
which  overthrew  the  world.     Had  God  allowed  the 


366  PRIMEVAL   REVELATION 

ungodliness  of  the  antediluvians  to  continue  another 
century,  the  last  remnant  of  true  religion  would  have 
been  obliterated,  the  Church  annihilated,  the  purpose 
of  God  respecting  a  godly  seed  frustrated.  How  to 
preserve  the  race,  and  yet  realise  the  purposes  of 
Divine  Grace?  Only  by  drowning  the  ungodly  to 
make  a  fresh  start  with  Noah.  This  lamentable 
calamity  has,  therefore,  a  salvation  side  as  well  as  a 
destruction  side.  At  the  critical  moment,  "in  due 
time,"  when  Evil  was  submerging  Good,  when  the 
seed  of  the  serpent  was  overcoming  the  seed  of  the 
woman — had  overcome  all  except  one  family,  and  pos- 
sibly all  except  one  in  that  family — God  supernaturally 
interposed.  Having  drowned  the  unbelievers,  the 
arena  is  once  more  clear  for  Him  to  proceed,  in  a 
new  and  a  clean  world,  with  the  work  of  Redemption. 
At  the  last  moment,  Evil  was  discomfited,  Goodness 
triumphed. 


Printed  by  Hazell,  Watson,  <§»  Vimy,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylesbuiy. 


Date  Due 

0   ?3  •■   -^ 

i 

^,,,,.,,^ 

^ 

BS1235  .J77 

Primeval  revelation  :  studies  in  Genesis 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00042  2396 


